Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Reserves

Mr Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the latest estimates of the United Kingdom reserves of oil, gas and coal and the proportion of the European Community's indigenous energy reserves possessed by the United Kingdom.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Dr. J Dickson Mabon): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) on 5th July 1977. Estimated United Kingdom proved reserves, expressed as a percentage of total EEC proved reserves, are as follows: crude oil, 90 per cent.; natural gas, 24 per cent.; solid fuels, 52 per cent.

Mr. Evans: Since we have a substantial amount of the resources of the EEC, will my right hon. Friend ensure that these resources are developed in the interests of the people of this island as a whole and that in his negotiations with the EEC he will protect the British position?

Dr. Mabon: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the Minister take into account the adverse negotiations on Scotland's fishing industry in relation to the EEC and the determination of the 50-mile limit when he negotiates an energy arrangement with the EEC as regards oil?

Dr. Mabon: I do not necessarily accept the hon. Gentleman's premise, and it is not absolutely the case that fishing and oil coincide, whether one considers this in terms of the arbitration we have had with the French or further arbitrations there may be, or within the context of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point.

Coal Production

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what increases in production and productivity have been achieved over the last three years in the coal mines since the signing of the tripartite agreement in 1974.

Mr. Warren: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last discussed coal production problems with the Chairman of the National Coal Board.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): Overall production and productivity in the coal mines has not increased over the past three years. I have discussed this and other problems with the Chairman and Board members of the NCB and the mining unions on many occasions.

Mr. Miller: What responsibility does the Secretary of State accept following the Government's signature of the tripartite agreement? In particular, can he tell the House why he failed to give support to the productivity deal in the coal industry?

Mr. Benn: Perhaps I could give the House some other figures. According to the German coal producers' figures published earlier this year, output per man-shift in hundredweights is 67 in Britain, 55 in France and 50 in Belgium. The operating subsidies paid per ton of coal produced are 83p in the United Kingdom, £3.73 in Germany, £22.22 in France and £36.64 in Belgium.
The answer to productivity in the mining industry must rest with those who work in the industry. As chairman of the tripartite committee which produced the Plan for Coal, I gave my support for the scheme which was agreed by the Coal Board and the NUM.

Mr. Warren: Accepting the Secretary of State's declaration that he was responsible, may I ask him to bear in mind that absenteeism is a major factor in declining coal production? Will he have an immediate meeing with the Chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss with him the bizarre situation which has arisen from correspondence I have had with the Chairman of the Coal Board, and also with Mr. Arthur Scargill, in which it has been declared that the miners from Yorkshire picketing at Grunwick have been paid by the union to be absent from the coalface?

Mr. Benn: My own view is that Members of Parliament or Ministers telling those in the mining industry how to produce coal is not effective. I am not prepared

to learn any lessons on the handling of the coal industry from the Conservative Party.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend accept and agree that the coal mining industry as an extractive industry, with investment over the years, has possibly reached its optimum? Will he further agree that there will be great problems in trying to increase productivity if there is no further breakthrough on the technological front and that we must, therefore, get accustomed, as most other countries have done, to the fact that productivity is not likely to increase by any great amount, whatever method is used? Will he also bear in mind that there have been other ballots in the mining industry in 1975 and 1976 which upheld the pay policy at that time and that the minority who were against it, such as Arthur Scargill and myself, had to accept that majority vote? Therefore, we expect the rest of the miners and everybody else to accept the majority verdict in this case.

Mr. Benn: As my hon. Friend knows much better than I, there are geological factors which make increased productivity difficult beyond a certain point. The House should also know that face productivity in the first 30 weeks of this year is up on last year and that in the new pits, such as Royston, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary visited on Friday, productivity is four times the national average because of retreat mining and new technology. All this underlines the unwisdom of those who are not familiar with or do not work in the mining industry in seeking to read lectures to those who actually work in it.

Mr. Emery: After the discussions with the Chairman of the National Coal Board, is the Secretary of State, as a member of the Cabinet as well as Secretary of State for Energy, able to make clear to the House that the Government are expecting the National Union of Mineworkers to accept only a 10 per cent. increase in pay?

Mr. Benn: The Government's position on this has been made clear time and again, including by myself when I visited a pit in Lancashire on Friday. The truth is that the disappointment felt by the hon. Gentleman and others of his


right hon. and hon. Friends is due to the fact that there has not been a conflict or confrontation between the Government and the mining industry. That is the point that the hon. Gentleman has at the back of his mind. If I were to identify the policy of the Conservative Party, I think it might be properly called "In search of strife".

Mr. Emery: Is it 10 per cent., or more?

Mr. Kelley: Will my right hon. Friend consider with the Chairman of the National Coal Board the question of increasing productivity by a productivity bonus scheme? I remind my right hon. Friend of the millions of tons lost to the British industry prior to the power-loading agreement as a result of the failure of the people at the point of production and the local underground officials to agree on geological and mechanical failures which interrupted production at the coalface.

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend knows that there is a long history in the mining industry, and no doubt that long history played some part in the recent ballot. But he will also know that Joe Gormley, Lawrence Daly and Mick McGahey issued a statement recently, which I strongly support, calling for an increase in production in line with the undertakings reached in the tripartite agreement.

Mr. Tom King: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that we regard his answers to the questions of my hon. Friends as pathetic as his general contribution throughout the period of the ballot on productivity? So long as he continues to have responsibility for his present office, will he recognise that his position as chairman of the tripartite committee places on him certain responsibilities which he cannot wave away in the way in which he has sought to do in the House? Will he use that position to try to do all he can still to achieve some element of productivity, which is recognised widely in the industry as being still possible?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman made a speech recently in which he threatened to review the capital investment programme of the mining industry. Nothing

could be more likely to worsen relations within that industry than to suggest that this country could do other than rely upon coal. Since I read in the newspapers that the hon. Gentleman now has a public relations firm advising him, I suggest that he sacks it.

Electricity Grid (Cross-Channel Link)

Mr. Aitken: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he is considering for linking the British and French electricity grid systems; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: The CEGB is currently conducting preliminary investigations with its French counterparts into the feasibility of a 2,000-MW link between the two systems; and will be letting us have a full report on the technical and economic aspects of the project.

Mr. Aitken: Is the Minister aware that greater cross-Channel power links could come as a most blessed relief to householders who have suffered much misery from the power cuts caused by industrial action, particularly by the mineworkers' and power workers' disputes in the past? Is he also aware that it could save us from the situation being exacerbated by the highly ambiguous attitude to these disputes shown here this afternoon and elsewhere by the Secretary of State?

Dr. Mabon: That is a rather highly partisan attitude towards this important proposition. There are considerable economic advantages, quite apart from those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, which exist between the two systems because of the diversity of peak demand. I have no doubt that the CEGB will be making that point in its report to us.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Accepting how absurd was the previous supplementary question, and the complete ignorance of the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) of the relative energy resources of France and Britain, may I ask my right hon. Friend nevertheless to look at this matter seriously in terms, which have been expressed, of exporting coal by wire? This could act as an important stimulant to further investment by the CEGB.

Dr. Mabon: Yes, Sir. The preliminary estimates given to us by the CEGB suggest that up to 1 million tons of coal by wire, as my hon. Friend described it,


could be exported annually, depending on the relative base load generating costs. That is a very significant factor.

Mr. Powell: In this connection, will the Minister bear in mind the benefits which would accrue to the Great Britain grid from a link with Northern Ireland, where the capacity of the Kilroot power station greatly exceeds the prospective consumption in the Province?

Dr. Mabon: Yes, Sir. We are considering that.

Save It Campaign

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has for improving the Save It campaign.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Dr. John Cunningham): The Save It publicity campaign forms an essential part of the Government's developing energy conservation programme, which has achieved significant energy savings. The campaign, whose present phase highlights the need to avoid energy waste and shows how to save energy, will be developed in the light of continuing research.

Mr. Arnold: Since the net savings might be considerable, why have no additional allowances been made available to local authorities or private builders in order to improve thermal insulation levels?

Dr. Cunningham: I do not see what that has to do with the Save It publicity campaign. If the hon. Gentleman would like to put a Question down about it, perhaps I can give him the details of that.

Mr. Cartwright: Will my hon. Friend agree that, even though this may not have a direct link with the Save It campaign, dramatic improvements in energy conservation could be secured if we had a sensible level of insulation in local authority housing? Could he tell us how his discussions with the Department of the Environment have been progressing on this important issue?

Dr. Cunningham: The view of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold) is totally misconceived, because he regards the Save It campaign, which is a publicity campaign, as the Government's

energy conservation policy, which clearly it is not.
As for my hon. Friend's point, it is quite right to say that both in public sector and in private sector housing we can save a significant amount of energy by insulation and other measures, such as draughtproofing and the lagging of hot water tanks, and, as my hon. Friend is aware, these matters are under consideration.

Mr. Rost: Is not the answer from the Under-Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove typically complacent, and does not it show a complete ignorance of the real problem? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this is the only country in the European Community that does not provide incentives for domestic thermal insulation?

Dr. Cunningham: I think that the ignorance was wholly on the part of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove in making a complete confusion between a publicity campaign and the Government's conservation policies. There is also, apparently, considerable confusion on the part of Opposition Back Benchers as a whole, who are now apparently yet again calling for massive public expenditure at a time when their Front Bench is continually calling for reductions in public expenditure. As for financial assistance being available, considerable assistance is already available. It is a fact that the hon. Gentleman's friends in Tory-controlled local authorities will not get on and utilise it.

Power Station Construction

Mr. Mike Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Eneregy what discussions he has had with the Chairmen of the Electricity Council and the CEGB about future power station construction.

Mr. Jim Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to be in a position to make a statement over the future ordering programme for nuclear power stations.

Mr. Benn: I have had many meetings with the chairmen on power station ordering and other matters in recent months. The placing of orders is for the Board.

Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the continuing importance of


a steady ordering programme for the turbo-generator and boiler-making industries? Is it not remarkable that whereas we are constantly told by the CEGB that the Drax power station has been brought forward, is not necessary and is not justified by demand, it nevertheless seems anxious to get on and order AGRs?

Mr. Benn: I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend has made. With regard to Drax, the Government statement having been made, I put the matter to the Board and I saw the Chairman on a number of occasions. It is recognised throughout the industry that the Drax B station will not of itself solve the problem. That is why the thermal reactor choice, which I discussed last week with the Board and with all those concerned, is so important. I hope to make a statement on that matter shortly.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Can the Secretary of State yet tell us when he intends to make an announcement about the reactor choice for the next generation of nuclear stations?

Mr. Benn: I have just answered that question. I had my final round of consultations last week with all those concerned, and I shall make a statement as soon as I can. But I want to endorse something which I think the whole House wants, namely, that we should get on with the thermal station. We have been held back by the delay, not of the Government's making but in the customer making its recommendation.

Mr. Palmer: Can my right hon. Friend say that when he refers to the next stage of the nuclear reactor programme he means the planned station at Sizewell in Suffolk and the station at Torness in Scotland which is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Benn: As my hon. Friend knows better than most, the question of ordering is for the Board. The responsibility that falls upon me, in the light of the advice given me by the Board, is to announce the Government's decision on the thermal reactor choice. I hope very much that I can proceed with that as quickly as possible.

Mr. Gray: With regard to the Drax order, will the Secretary of State say whether it is a matter merely of a dialogue between the CEGB and the Gov-

ernment or whether Parliament will be asked, by means of a Bill, to approve any compensation that may have to be paid to the CEGB? If it is the latter, when does the right hon. Gentleman intend to introduce such a Bill?

Mr. Benn: It certainly is not a closed dialogue. Of all the things that one might have said about the Drax B discussion. no one could argue that it has been conducted behind closed doors. It has been the most open discussion that there has been for many years on the matter of energy policy and industrial ordering. But legislation will be required, and in that context, as in every other, Members of Parliament will have a full part to play.

Solar Heating

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if Her Majesty's Government intend to provide grants towards the cost of installation of solar heating.

Mr. Newton: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what financial assistance is presently available to people installing solar heating; and what further steps he proposes to take to encourage such installation.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: No grants are at present available towards the installation of solar heating, and there are no current plans to provide general assistance for this purpose.

Mr. Jessel: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is in the national interest to encourage the use of energy derived from the sun, which is unlimited and eternal and would save on the use of fossil fuels? Is he aware of the strong recommendation of the Select Committee on Science and Technology? If so, what will the Government do about it?

Dr. Cunningham: There have been some interesting comments about this Administration but being the Administration of the Sun King is not one of them. I am aware of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Science and Technology which were published only in July of this year. The Select Committee made 22 recommendations about alternative sources, seven of which specifically referred to solar power, and we are considering them.

British National Oil Corporation

Mr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next hopes to meet the Chairman of the British National Oil Corporation.

Mr. Macfarlane: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the Chairman of the British National Oil Corporation.

Mr. Benn: I see Lord Kearton very frequently.

Mr. Gray: When the Secretary of State next sees Lord Kearton, will he point out to him that there is considerable concern among many of the oil companies which are engaged in consultations with the BNOC regarding participation agreements about the autocratic attitude being adopted by the Corporation? Will he point out that that is not likely to encourage companies in their future development programmes and will he condemn such an attitude?

Mr. Benn: Every little murmur of criticism by the oil companies against Britain and British oil policy has been amplified and expanded by Conservative Members. Every one of their predictions about the impact of our policy on the development of the North Sea has been proved wrong. If the Conservative Party thought about the national interest instead of simply the commercial interests of the international oil companies, this country would make a lot more progress.

Mr. Macfarlane: Will the Secretary of State please convey to the Chairman of the British National Oil Corporation that the growing disquiet arises because the BNOC has so far given no clear indication of what it will do with the fast accumulating stocks of crude oil in this country? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that that is why Professor Odell has been recently added to the long list of his Department's employees?

Mr. Benn: I employed Professor Odell because I believe that he has a notable rôle to play in advising me on the relations between other Governments in the world and the oil companies with which they deal. The problem is not the problem that the hon. Gentleman mentioned; it was that we inherited a situation in which not one drop of North

Sea oil was as of right available to the British people. That was the position which we have had to correct. The disposal of the North Sea oil which the BNOC has is a matter of great concern.

Mr. John Garrett: Has my right hon. Friend asked the Chairman of the BNOC for a report from his technical staff on whether the depletion policies and procedures being used by the international oil companies in the North Sea are in the national interest?

Mr. Benn: One of the problems of depletion policy is determining how to use the instruments available in such a way as not to damage the investment but to see that the oil is used and that the pace of development conforms to the national interest. In the draft document which is going to the Energy Commission on 28th November—it was published two or three weeks ago—there is a passage on that. I shall send a copy to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Watt: When the Minister meets the Chairman of BNOC, will he discuss the situation arising in the North Sea, where many of the standby vessels are operating under flags of convenience and, as a result, do not have to abide by any safety regulations? Is he aware that many of the vessels are unseaworthy and the crews untrained in first aid? Will he impress upon the chairman the necessity of the oil companies employing only vessels that fly the British flag?

Mr. Benn: This point has been raised with me, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have no powers to determine the vessels employed by the oil companies, and we are therefore limited as to what can be done. However, I am trying to get trade union representation extended offshore because, on safety matters, union representation is the best possible guarantee that safety regulations will be carried out.

Coal Industry

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the National Union of Mineworkers' leaders; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Tim Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet representatives of the National


Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers.

Mr. Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next plans to meet the Chairman of the National Coal Board.

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he proposes to meet the parties involved in the tripartite consideration of the coal industry.

Mr. Benn: I meet representatives of the unions in the fuel industries and the chairmen and representatives of the fuel industry boards frequently, and shall do so next when the National Energy Commission meets on 28th November.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend tell the leaders of the NUM that the unity of the NUM is paramount at this time and that any attempt to have localised productivity deals can only damage the long-term interests of the miners and will obviously be supported by the Tories, because that is what they have been endeavouring to do for many years? Will he also ask them to take no notice of those in Hobart House, who are not subjected to any productivity deals themselves, but to go along with their present basic claim in order to improve the prospects of the mining industry, thereby improving the chances of getting more people to dig the coal that most people are after?

Mr. Benn: I fully understand what my hon. Friend is saying. It is a matter for the National Union of Mineworkers, and I do not believe that my intervention in this matter would be helpful, necessary or right.

Mr. Smith: Contrary to what has just been said, does the Secretary of State agree that the Nottinghamshire miners would have benefited most from the productivity agreement rejected in the national ballot? What would his view be if the Nottinghamshire miners were to seek a local productivity agreement with the Nottinghamshire area of the NCB?

Mr. Benn: The Conservative Party has been arguing for years about the desirability of balloting workers when matters come up for decision. There has been a ballot, and nobody disputes that

it was a ballot in which all the issues were well understood, because it was not even decided on the first ballot. In the circumstances, I think that the House, and particularly the party opposite, had better decide what is its attitude to the decision which has been given. On the one hand, it is not possible to demand ballots and then complain, on the other hand, if the outcome does not conform to that of those who might have taken a contrary view.

Mr. Hannam: When the Secretary of State meets the leaders of both sides of the industry, will he discuss with them the present serious shortage of domestic coal and anthracite? Further, will he accept that his failure to give full support to this productivity deal is a blow for the solution of those particular shortages?

Mr. Benn: I do not for one moment accept the second part of the hon. Gentleman's statement. As to solid fuel stocks, perhaps I may give the House the figures. The stocks now available to the trade are somewhat below what they were last year. On the other hand, the National Coal Board's dispatches of house coal are 300,000 tons up on the comparable period last year, and one-third of the increase in house coal production that I have just described took place in October. Regarding anthracite, where domestic supplies are not available there is a general understanding that the deficiency should be met by imports.

Mr. Hardy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a new initiative really is required if the long-term danger of division within the coal industry is to be avoided, if coal production is to be enhanced and if markets are to be retained?

Mr. Benn: I agree with my hon. Friend. That was the spirit in which the tripartite agreement was signed in 1974. It was that which led to Mr. Gormley, Mr. Daly and Mr. McGahey making their recent statement. I am the chairman of the tripartite committee, and I think everybody in the industry understands that this problem has to be met. My only doubt is whether Ministers or Members of Parliament are the best people to tell the miners, the mining engineers and mine managers how to dig the coal.

Mr. Tom King: Is the Secretary of State aware that we support strongly the comment just made by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) that a new initiative is needed in which the right hon. Gentleman has a part to play? Does he not accept that continually to tell the House that his intervention would not be helpful makes absolutely pointless his rôle as chairman of the tripartite committee, which agreed that a productivity agreement was essential?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman is becoming silly. Last week he said that I should be dismissed. Now he says that I have a crucial part to play in the future of the industry. The hon. Gentleman had better make up his mind what he wants.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the overwhelming majority of mineworkers in my constituency feel that during recent weeks they have been led astray by false prophets? Is he aware that while they could have been earning £20 to £25 a week more in wages, which with an addition in March next year would have brought them within striking distance of £135 a week, they now face the alternative of either 10 per cent, or a strike, neither of which ideas they find attractive? Could my right hon. Friend, therefore, urge upon the leaders of the NUM to take a second look at this scheme, with a view to presenting more clearly its virtues to the industry?

Mr. Skinner: There speaks the voice of the managers.

Mr. Benn: I understand fully what my hon. Friend says, but I must reply to him by repeating what I said, and firmly believe, that it is best to leave the matter of how the production is to be achieved to the Coal Board and the mining unions—which include the colliery managers, the overmen and deputies—because it is for them to determine how these problems should be solved. But my hon. Friend has fairly reflected the view that was put forward at the time of the ballot, and I know that that is widely understood in the industry.

Mr. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the

Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

North Sea Oil Exports

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give details of the quantity and value of North Sea oil which was exported to other countries during the past 12 months; and what percentage this represents of the total oil lifted from the North Sea.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: In the 12-month period ending on 30th September this year, nearly 13 million tonnes of North Sea crude was exported, representing nearly 40 per cent. of production in the period. The total value was approximately £750 million.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Those are staggering figures and, I should have thought, would almost immediately have made us eligible to join OPEC. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that we have been told by successive Ministers that the North Sea resources will not last indefinitely and that we must make the best use of them? They give us independence in oil in this country. There-force, why on earth is there this enormous level of exports? Why are we not retaining this oil for our own use rather than selling it to other countries, thereby denuding ourselves and perhaps creating a difficult future for Britain?

Dr. Mabon: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. The Government do not go back in any way on the statement made on 6th December 1974 by the then Secretary of State for Energy, now Secretary of State for Industry, on the so-called two-thirds rule. We are, it is true, nearly 6 per cent. above that figure, which is significant. We are determined, because of our continuing consultations with the oil companies, to try to correct this matter and get it in perspective.
The participation agreements which we are negotiating with the oil companies will specifically provide for consultations on plans for marketing North Sea crude. Any remark of the type made by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) about BNOC is contrary to this policy rather than in support of it.

Mr. Dalyell: What percentage of the exports came through Shetland?

Dr. Mabon: Without notice, I cannot say.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: In view of the Government's failure to keep within their own limits in relation to the export of crude oil, will the right hon. Gentleman say that it was not a correct statement of Government policy that they prefer to allow the oil companies to export, as they will, rather than encourage them to invest in petrochemical developments in Scotland?

Dr. Mabon: There is no intention on the part of the Government to allow oil companies to market at will. On the other hand, one must respect and observe our international agreements. We must respect the concerns of our friends in Western Europe, in North America and in Scandinavia, to whom most of such exports have gone.
I am very pleased to notice that on both sides of the House there seems to be some feeling towards the idea of controlling our exports by perhaps additional legislation. I look forward to receiving unanimous support in the House if such legislation has to be introduced.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is vitally essential that we use the money coming from North Sea oil to ensure that we modernise industry in this country and make it more productive? Does he believe that, if we give too much away to industry by reducing taxation and so on, the money from that source will go into industry, or will the Government have to do it themselves?

Dr. Mabon: I share my hon. Friend's concern. There is to be a presentation by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Energy as part of the debate which the Prime Minister announced in August on the disposal of our North Sea oil revenues with regard to restructuring industry, the repayment of debts and the general improvement of the nation's economic performance. All that will come before us in due course.

Mr. Gray: In view of the Government's stated attitude to the export of crude and the fact that we are told on

every hand that we have an excess of refining capacity in this country, why have the Government, with all the measures that they have taken for control, allowed 40 per cent. of the oil so far produced to be exported?

Dr. Mabon: I am disappointed with the hon. Gentleman, who knows a great deal about the subject, if he does not realise that we do not have control. The State does not have control over such exports. If hon. Gentlemen would like us to have control, they should say so, and we as a Government could say that we would consider the matter. If the hon. Gentleman means that we should seek to persuade the companies—through participation agreements or by some other means—to observe the two-thirds line, that is precisely the Government's policy.

Renewable Sources

Mr. Sainsbury: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the contribution to be expected from renewable sources of energy to total energy consumption by 1982.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): There is expected to be no significant contribution from renewable energy sources by 1982 other than that from hydro power, which is expected to provide about 2 million tons coal equivalent given average rainfall.

Mr. Sainsbury: Will the Minister accept that, if we are to change this lamentable state of affairs, we need to take more urgent action on the recommendations of the Select Committee on Science and Technology and also make a greater contribution from the available funds for research directed to renewable sources of energy rather than merely to nuclear sources?

Mr. Eadie: My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend have said that the recommendation of the Select Committee on Science and Technology is being considered by the Government. As regards Government expenditure, it may be helpful if I inform the House that in wave power it is £2·5 million in two to three years and in solar energy £3·6 million in four years, raising total Government spending in that period to £6 million.


Expenditure on geothermal energy is estimated to be £840,000 in three years and on wind energy £160,000 in one year. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, having made inquiries today, that there is no country making any significant contribution, other than with geothermal heat, from other sources of energy. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with the details of that.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: When will a decision be taken on the Severn barrage scheme?

Mr. Eadie: I do not think it will be taken tomorrow. I realise my hon. Friend's concern about this scheme. Some further studies are being carried out and, as he knows, there was a report on many aspects of the scheme, including cost.

Fuel Bills

Mr. Ovenden: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what consideration he has given to extending the scheme for assistance for certain consumers with electricity bills to cover other types of fuel.

Mrs. Bain: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what new plans his Department has in the current year to ease pressure on low income groups in meeting fuel bills.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: Details of the revised scheme to help recipients of supplementary benefit and family income supplement with their electricity bills this winter were announced on 18th October. They include a payment of £5 to be made to recipients of these benefits in the week commencing 16th January 1978. This is intended to help with electricity costs but may be used in whole or in part towards other fuel costs. Beneficiaries may also claim 25 per cent. of the amount of electricity board bills which exceed £20. To extend the scheme as a whole to other fuels would be administratively very difficult.

Mr. Ovenden: Will my hon. Friend accept that, whilst the continuation of the electricity scheme and the improvements that he has made are extremely welcome, many of our poorest families and poorest pensioners are dependent upon solid fuel heating rather than upon electricity? They

get very little out of this scheme. Will my hon. Friend, therefore, look at it again and try to overcome these administrative problems so that we may make sure that such people can afford heating this winter?

Dr. Cunningham: Clearly we cannot change the provisions of the scheme for this winter. However, to deal with my hon. Friend's point, if the people to whom he refers are in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement they will get a payment of £5, which they can use in whatever way they decide.

Mrs. Bain: Does the Minister realise that his response to a great human problem will be regarded as a very timid and bureaucratic one, ignoring, as it does, the needs of a vast section of the community, namely, deprived people? Will he have discussions with the Health Education Council, which is deeply concerned about the health, welfare and even the lives of old people during the coming winter?

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Lady must not confuse the admittedly limited role and scope of this scheme with the much wider role and responsibilities of the Department of Health and Social Security.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Can my hon. Friend give us some information about the take-up of the old scheme, and can he tell us why there is a £20 limit on the new scheme, because that seems to prevent those who depend on other fuels from getting the full benefit?

Dr. Cunningham: To deal with the second part of the question first, there is no limit. For bills up to £20, people will receive automatically £5 in cash. For bills in excess of £20, people can claim additional benefit. For example, if the bill is £40, the entitlement is £10, £5 of which will be paid automatically. They will be entitled to the other £5 as well, and they will receive it. Therefore, the discount is still 25 per cent. of the bill, whatever it may be, provided that the people claiming the discount are in those categories.
Last year—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members want to mouth objections about getting on with it, perhaps it means that they do not really want to hear what the Government are doing to help people to pay their bills. We think that final figures for the scheme for last


year will amount to 70 per cent. of those eligible.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does the Minister expect to announce the results of any consultations with the Department of the Environment about the excessive heating costs for tenants of local authority properties who are stuck with high-cost electrical heating?

Dr. Cunningham: The Department of the Environment, rather than ourselves, is looking at this problem in some detail. Clearly we are concerned about it too. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a specific date when the Department of the Environment expects to reach any conclusions, but perhaps I may write to him about it.

Electricity Production

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give a higher priority in his Department's policy to promoting energy savings changes in the production of electricity.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: The electricity industry already maximises the efficiency with which it uses fuel in the generation of electricity. The House will be aware of the work of the Combined Heat and Power Group set up by this Department which includes representation from the electricity industry. A report by a working party of the group was published as Energy Paper No. 20 in March this year. Following discussion of this document, the Government will consider the work of the group and the possibilities for improving the efficiency of use of primary energy if it is found practicable for reject heat from electricity generation to be used in combined heat and power schemes.

Mr. Forman: As the process of energy conversion and distribution is the largest single consumer of primary fuel, consuming about 30 per cent. of the total, is it not time that the Government paid more urgent attention to combined heat and power and, indeed, to industrial progeneration?

Dr. Cunningham: We are paying urgent attention to that matter, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Many pilot schemes are already under way and detailed work is being done on them, in addition to the fuller report which I have

mentioned, which we expect to have in the early part of next year.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Kenya

Mr. Fry: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what was the level of aid provided by the United Kingdom to Kenya in 1976; and what are the projected figures for 1977 and 1978.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. John Tomlinson): In 1976, £11·5 million; the estimated disbursement for 1977–78 is £15 million. These figures do not include pension payments of £3·1 million or loans by the Commonwealth Development Corporation of £6·4 million in 1976.

Mr. Fry: In view of the substantial sums forwarded by the British taxpayer, will the Minister add his support to any approach to the Kenya Government to stop the blocking of funds which comprise the savings of many British citizens who have the misfortune to have them controlled by the Kenya Government and who have no ability at the moment to get their money back?

Mr. Tomlinson: If the hon. Gentleman has specific problems in that direction, I hope that he will write to me so that I can give the matter the serious consideration that it will no doubt warrant.

Sir G. de Freitas: In considerng this aid, will my hon. Friend remember that at all times since Kenya's independence in 1963 she has made the most sensible use of the aid that she has received from this country?

Mr. Tomlinson: That is certainly so, and that is why the Government have strong concern for the need to support the Government in Kenya, in accordance with our aid strategy.

Mr. Arnold: Does the Minister still believe that the Nairobi-based development division is the best way of administering aid both to Kenya and to the rest of East Africa?

Mr. Tomlinson: The question of the development divisions is under continuous review. If the hon. Gentleman has a


particular problem which he thinks makes it less than the best way, if he gives me his detailed view it will receive the consideration that it merits.

Mr. Emery: Does the Minister take into account the fact that the Kenya Government are most concerned about the possibility of threats from the Somali border? In that context, is he giving every consideration to aid for defence for this part of Africa, which is essential to keeping a democratic structure within central Africa?

Mr. Tomlinson: The Government are very much concerned about the problem, but we do not use aid funds for defence purposes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the reason for that.

Paraguay

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what sums remain outstanding of the 1971 loan to the Government of Paraguay.

Mr. Tomlinson: None, Sir.

Mr. Whitehead: In retrospect, and bearing in mind the nature of the régime and the fact that it is reported in Paraguay that many critics of the national electric power network project for which that money was advanced in 1971 have been arrested, will the Government now say that no similar projects will be entertained in the future as long as the present régime in Paraguay remains?

Mr. Tomlinson: No projects are anticipated at present. As in all other areas in the world, human rights considerations are seriously taken into account in any decisions that are made in relation to the aid budget.

Mr. Rifkind: Can the Minister confirm today's report that the Government have withdrawn the £19 million loan to Bolivia because of representations by the NUM about human rights in that country? Can the Minister indicate—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This Question is about Paraguay. The hon. Member should put his question on the Order Paper.

Falkland Islands

Sir Bernard Braine: asked the Minister of Overseas Development

whether feasibility studies into sheepskin processing, mutton freezing and local television have yet been authorised for the Falkland Islands.

The Minister of State for Overseas Development (Mrs. Judith Hart): An adviser has just visited the Falkland Islands to give practical demonstrations on sheepskin processing and to advise on the feasibility of establishing a small skin processing project in the islands and on marketing possibilities. The Falkland Islands Government have not yet asked my Department to provide feasibility studies in mutton freezing and local television, but I should be prepared to consider any such requests sympathetically if they were made.

Sir B. Braine: That answer is fair enough as far as it goes, but as the recommendations of the Shackleton Report were made 16 months ago, and as a whole range of feasibility studies has been promised in the Falkland Islands, should not greater progress be made? In any event, would it not be right to ensure that the results of those studies are made known and that any development schemes are agreed with the Falkland Islands Government before there are any further discussions with the Argentine dictatorship about the future of the islands?

Mrs. Hart: I completely understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. I had discussions with the Governor of the Falkland Islands about a month ago, and I can give an assurance that we shall do everything we can to promote the economic development of the Falkland Islands while discussions with the Argentinian Government proceed.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the right hon. Lady promise the House that a full answer will be given to what should be done about the Shackleton Report and essentially about the extension of the runway in the Falklands, which would make the whole situation much easier? Will she bear in mind that, with the new wealth being discovered in the Antarctic, it is more important than ever that we maintain our interest in the Falkland Islands?

Mrs. Hart: I assure the House that we are deeply impressed and concerned with all these aspects of the matter.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Do something about it.

Mrs. Hart: We are providing a great deal of technical assistance to the Falkland Islands to explore all these possibilities. We shall continue to do so and we shall certainly inform the House as soon as we can of our conclusions on the economic prospects for the Falkland Islands.

Mr. James Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that fish is as important as sheepmeat and that the most important feasibility study we can do here is that in connection with fishing? Is she aware that the seas are teeming with fish being caught by Communist nations and Japan and that Hull, among many ports, is teeming with vessels which cannot get to sea to catch fish because of the Icelandic blockade?

Mrs. Hart: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that we are now touching on matters which perhaps concern our colleagues in the EEC even more than the Argentinian Government and the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of a reply to an earlier Question of mine that the development of fishing must be made dependent on co-operation with Argentina, may I ask the Minister whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that Argentina should be allowed to put a brake on the exploitation of the resources of the islands for the benefit of their British people?

Mrs. Hart: No, not at all. It is a question of balancing the discussions with the Argentinian Government and the best interests of the Falkland Islanders. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the best interests of the Falkland Islands are at the centre of my thinking.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: In view of the Minister's totally unsatisfactory answer, I propose to raise the whole matter of the Falkland Islands on the Adjournment.

Malawi

Mr. Arnold: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what conclusions she has now reached about British funding of the Viphya forestry project in Malawi.

Mr. Tomlinson: During discussions in May, my officials provisionally agreed to a tentative allocation of further capital aid of about £3 million over the next four years for the maintenance of the existing pine plantations and related development plus some additional planting. I now await detailed proposals.

Mr. Arnold: Given that this project is in a deprived area, what are the immediate prospects for continuing with local employment? Can the creation of such a substantial asset at Viphya now be made commercially viable?

Mr. Tomlinson: The fact that we are, as I have said, making a tentative allocation of further capital aid of £3 million over the next four years indicates the importance that the Government feel this project represents to a very deprived area of Malawi and obviously has significant repercussions for employment and for other benefits to come to the economy of that area.

Mr. Spearing: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a deprived area of Malawi, but can he say approximately what proportion of Government aid over the next four years this £3 million represents?

Mr. Tomlinson: My right hon. Friend is trying to do his mental arithmetic, which is somewhat faster than mine. I cannot do so now, but I shall try to give a reply later today.

Mr. Carter-Jones: If my hon. Friend is considering the allocation of resources in Africa, and in Malawi in particular, will he give careful attention to the possibility of developing the cold chain for immunisation against diseases which can be prevented in that area?

Mr. Tomlinson: My hon. Friend will know from the discussions which he has already had with me the level of importance that both I and the Ministry attach to this project. As I have told him, we are willing to have further discussions at any time to see how progress can be expedited.

Mozambique

Mr. Gow: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the total amount of Government assistance to Mozambique during the current year;


and for what purposes that assistance has been given.

Mr. Kimball: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a statement on her recent visit to Mozambique.

Miss Joan Lestor: asked the Minister of Overseas Development which areas of development the recent aid to Mozambique is intended to cover.

Mrs. Hart: British aid to Mozambique consists firstly of two programme loans, each of £5 million. The 1976 loan, which was offered following the Mozambican closure of its border with Rhodesia, was to buy British goods, notably vehicles including bus chassis and trucks, textile machinery, electrical generating equipment and transformers, and spare parts. The 1977 loan was made in response to the appeal of the Security Council of the United Nations last June and will be for spares and maintenance items.
Secondly, we are providing £10 million of project aid to finance three electric power projects and for rural roads, to help agricultural development. Thirdly, we have provided 5,000 tonnes of food aid. I am publishing further financial details in the Official Report.
My visit to Mozambique was for the purpose of signing the 1977 programme loan agreement and of discussing the most useful way of directing our aid programme.

Mr. Gow: Is the Minister aware that there is widespread indignation in this country—

Mr. Robert Hughes: Nonsense.

Mr. Gow: —about Government financial assistance to the Marxist régime in Mozambique, and that she has no guarantee that part of this very substantial aid is not being used by the Mozambique Government for the furtherance of the terrorists who are based there and who are murdering the Queen's subjects in Rhodesia?

Mrs. Hart: Naturally, I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point of view. Let me tell him, however, that there is total control over both the project aid and the programme aid to Mozambique, and no part of it is in fact going for anything

that can be construed as assisting warfare. Second, may I say that perhaps it might be better if the hon. Gentleman took a little less notice of what I can only call the somewhat irresponsible and mischievous reports that appear from time to time in the Press about Mozambique.

Miss Lestor: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the aid that the Government have agreed to give Mozambique. Is there not a degree of hypocrisy in the attitude that has been taken in certain quarters, since there was complete abandonment of any interest in the amount of arms supplied to South Africa and the use to which they were put in relation to holding down blacks and perpetuating apartheid in that country?

Mrs. Hart: I would, of course, entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The facts and assessments upon which we base our aid to Mozambique—certainly the programme loans and the most recent one which I signed in Mozambique on my recent visit—are based on very detailed United Nations assessments of the cost to Mozambique of sanctions against Rhodesia and the cost to Mozambique of, among other things, armed attacks from Rhodesia. Indeed, we expect today—I cannot be quite certain—to be one of the co-sponsors at the United Nations in New York of a resolution which will endorse the conclusion of a United Nations report saying that an additional $87 million of assistance plus food support is urgently needed by Mozambique on these counts.

Mr. Luce: If it is right for the Government to cancel a £19 million aid project to Bolivia on the grounds that that régime has abused human rights, how can it possibly be right for the Government to provide £20 million of taxpayers' money to support a regime which is providing a base to enable guerrillas to attack Africans and Europeans in Rhodesia? How can the Minister support a régime which is advocating a militant and violent solution in Rhodesia while her colleague the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is advocating a peaceful solution in that country?

Mrs. Hart: The hon. Gentleman and I were both present at the debate on Friday


on the Rhodesia sanctions order. He heard, as I heard, what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had to say. It is clear that there are two views about this matter. Plainly, there is a war situation in Southern Africa— it is not of our doing, but it is a fact—and that war situation means that there are guerrilla fighters stationed in Tanzania, Zambia and Mozambique. Our aid to Mozambique is not concerned with that; it is concerned partly with the poverty of Mozambique and partly with the direct economic consequences to Mozambique of playing its part in what we hope will be a peaceful solution to the Rhodesian problem.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in this country appreciate the sacrifices made by the people and Government of Mozambique in carrying out a sanctions policy against an illegal régime? Would it not be better if Conservative Members spent less time defending those who are in rebellion against the Crown and more in supporting those who are carrying out the policy of this Government?

Mrs. Hart: Hon. Members opposite would be well advised to read the United Nations report and to understand the very real economic sacrifices imposed upon an already difficult economic situation in Mozambique by the closing of the border with Rhodesia. They would do well to read some of the factual evidence on this subject.

Sir Bernard Braine: Is the Minister aware that those of us who regularly read United Nations reports on the state

MOZAMBIQUE—PRESENT STATE OF COMMITMENTS, AND DISBURSEMENTS DURING UNITED KINGDOM FINANCIAL YEAR 1977–78 UP TO 30TH SEPTEMBER


Programme
Date Agreement Signed/Commitment Agreed
Disbursement during UK F/Y 1977–78 (First half) £'000;


1976—


£5m. Programme Loan
August 1976
957


1977—


5,000 tonnes UK Food Aid under EEC Food Aid Programme
July 1977
623


£10m. Project Loan
July 1977
—


£5m. Programme Loan
October 1977
—


Bilateral Technical Co-operation
Ongoing
18


Balance of special Rhodesian Refugee Relief Programme in Mozambique (channelled through UN High Commission for Refugees)
October 1976
50


Contribution of up to £0·3m. to Commonwealth Fund for Mozambique
October 1976
—

of the human condition see that there are many parts of the world where aid could be used in much less controversial circumstances? Have not the Government got their priorities on this matter hopelessly mixed? How can the Minister defend aid on this scale to Mozambique at a time when there are many poorer countries in the world and within the Commonwealth that need British aid? In particular, how can she defend the continued failure to provide the British colony of Falkland Islands with the minimum development that it requires?

Mrs. Hart: The gross national product per head of Mozambique puts it well within the category of the poorest countries of the world. Falkland Islands, I am afraid, does not quite fall into that category.
Secondly, I wish that some hon. Members opposite would take the opportunity to visit Mozambique—I do not think that any of them have done so—and see just what poverty there is in the rural areas of Mozambique, following 50 years of Portuguese colonialism when nothing was done to benefit the ordinary people of Mozambique. I wish that hon. Gentlemen opposite would go and see for themselves rather than rely on mischievous reports in the Daily Telegraph.

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the gravely unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Following are the details:

FIRE SERVICE (DISPUTE)

Mr. Sillars: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the grave threat to public safety and the future of the Fire Service now that firemen are on strike.
When I put this matter to you in a somewhat different form, Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, you rejected the application, but added the words "at this stage".
The argument which I put last Wednesday about the specific nature of the issue and its importance and urgency remains valid. I shall not take the time of the House by repeating that case. However, there is a vital change: the firemen are now on strike. The Government have honestly and openly acknowledged that the Armed Services are not providing adequate fire cover. The population and industrial establishment are now totally exposed to risk. The morale and future effectiveness of the Fire Service are also now at risk. I submit that we have reached the stage when this House must debate the unprecedented

event of a national firemen's strike, with all that that implies for loss of life.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) would also like to move the Adjournment of the House on this subject, which is an indication of the growing concern.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member gave me notice this morning before 12 o'clock that he wished to move, under Standing Order No. 9, the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the grave threat to public safety and the future of the Fire Service now that firemen are on strike.
Last week, the hon. Gentleman made a similar application when the strike was a threatened strike. I am satisfied that the matter raised by the hon. Member is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 9. Has the hon. Gentleman the leave of the House?

The leave of the House having been given—

Mr. Speaker: The Motion for the Adjournment of the House will now stand over until the commencement of public business tomorrow, when a debate on the matter will take place for three hours.

SCOTLAND BILL (LONG TITLE)

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order in connection with the validity or otherwise of the Scotland Bill, which is on the Order Paper for Second Reading today.
The point of order is that, as printed, the Bill provides for changes in the government of any part of the United Kingdom, but the Long Title states it to be
A Bill To provide for changes in the government of Scotland
and there is added
and in the constitution and functions of certain public bodies".
I do not think, however, that anyone would argue that the "certain public bodies" included another place, this House, and the Ministers of the Crown.
I ask the indulgence of the House for longer than perhaps a moment in putting this point of order clearly, but I shall endeavour to condense it into as short a period as possible.
On 13th January last my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) had a notice on the Order Paper relating to the Scotland and Wales Bill—a Bill with a Title somewhat similar to that of the present Scotland Bill, except, of course, that it included Wales. It used in its Long Title the same phrase as in the Long Title to the present Scotland Bill, namely
to provide for changes in the government of Scotland and Wales".
The notice was a notice of intention to move:
That it be an Instruction to the Commitmittee on the Bill that it should have power to make provision for alterations to the structure and functions of government in any or all parts of the United Kingdom".
But you, Mr. Speaker, ruled on that occasion:
The right hon. Lady the Member for Renfrewshire, East has given notice of an Instruction which, if agreed to, would empower the Committee to provide for alterations to the structure and functions of government in any or all parts of the United Kingdom.
Then you ruled in this way:
Despite the great size and complexity of the Scotland and Wales Bill, the very brevity of its Long Title makes clear that it has one underlying purpose and one only, namely

['to provide for changes in the government of Scotland and Wales'].
Changes in the government of other parts of the United Kingdom in my view cannot possibly be held to be cognate to this restricted purpose. I must accordingly rule that the proposed Instruction would not be in order."—[Official Report, 13th January 1977; Vol. 923, c. 1663–64.]
That was a ruling upon an Instruction to a Committee on a Bill which had already been committed—an Instruction to insert something in the Bill at that stage after it had been committed. However, with respect, Mr. Speaker, it followed the logic of the rules relating to the Long Title of a Bill and the contents of a Bill in relation to that Long Title.
Pages 480 and 490 of "Erskine May", referring to the contents of a Bill in reference to the notice of presentation of the Bill, state that a Bill must not contain provisions which are not authorised by that notice. That is the same as saying the Long Title, because the Long Title repeats the notice of presentation.
"Erskine May" states:
If it should appear that these rules have not been observed the bill must be withdrawn.
"Erskine May" adds:
Such objections, however, should be taken before the second reading.
That, Mr. Speaker, is what I am now doing. It is not merely that the promotor of the Bill should withdraw it, but that you, Mr. Speaker, can order it to be withdrawn in those circumstances.
At the foot of page 490 of "Erskine May" about half a dozen references are given to instances when the contents of Bills have gone beyond the Long Title and have been ordered to be withdrawn. I quote from one instance when Mr. Speaker allowed the Bill to proceed but only after emphasising
the necessity of keeping within the strict rules of Parliamentary procedure and of giving the House and the Committee to understand by the Title of a Bill what the Bill is and what is to be done by it.
In your previous ruling, Mr. Speaker, you made quite clear what a
Bill is and what is to be done by it
when it says in the Long Title that it is a Bill to change the government of Scotland. It is not a Bill that can provide for changes in the government of any other part of the United Kingdom. Clause 1 of the present Bill clearly confirms that.
However, in four instances as the Bill is printed it provides for changes in the laws of the United Kingdom by the Scottish Assembly, by Her Majesty in Council, by a Minister of the Crown, or by this House alone. The changes are not limited to changes of that part of the law of the United Kingdom which affects Scotland. Whether any change of the law can be described as a change in government may be questionable, but certainly a change in the method of changing the law—for example, enabling the Scottish Assembly to change the law of England—must be a change in the government of England, and that is not written into the Long Title of the Bill. So also must a change in the law relating to the ministerial powers over the activities of the individual citizens in England and Wales be a change in the government of part of the United Kingdom other than Scotland.
I turn to the Bill itself. On page 41, in Schedule 2, by the combined effect of Clauses 18 and 19 and Schedule 2, the Scottish Assembly is to be given legislative competence to extend a Scottish Assembly Act to any part of the United Kingdom other than Scotland if that extension is
necessary or expedient for making other provisions effective or for the enforcement of other provisions: or are otherwise incidental to or consequential on any other provisions.
That power of extension in my submision, Mr. Speaker, is not limited to extensions of a Scottish Assembly Act in order to alter laws of the other parts of the United Kingdom as far as they affect Scotland. It seems to me to go far beyond that. It is wide open.
For example, it might be expedient to have uniformity in the law relating to education, traffic, transport, health, planning, and so on, throughout the United Kingdom. It might be easy to plead that it would be expedient to have that uniformity and thereby to say that it is consequential on some Act passed by the Scottish Assembly—that is, to justify legislation by the Scottish Assembly affecting England and Wales.
I turn to Clause 80, on page 37, which provides:
A Minister of the Crown may by order make such amendments in any Act passed before or in the same session as this Act and in any other enactment passed or made before

the passing of this Act as appear to him necessary or expedient in consequence of this Act.
That power is not limited to the effect of a United Kingdom Act upon Scotland. It permits any Act, in its effect upon England and Wales, and, indeed, probably Northern Ireland as well, to be altered by ministerial order, and I do not see how one can say that that is limited to changes in the government of Scotland by providing that it must appear to that Minister to be
necessary or expedient in consequence of this Act.
I turn now to Clause 35, on page 16, where it is provided:
Her Majesty may by Order in Council make any such amendments of the law of the United Kingdom or any part of it (including any provision contained in this Act) and such further provision …".
There are three qualifications to that order-making power. One is that it must
appear to Her to be necessary or expedient",
and I have said before how uniformity, for example, throughout the United Kingdom could be pleaded as being expedient.
The second qualification is that it must be
in consequence of any provision made by or under any Scottish Assembly Act.
I think that I have already shown how wide such an Act can be.
Thirdly, any such order must be approved in draft
by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
What protection is the approval of the draft of such an order? To discover that we must turn to Clause 74, on page 34, where it says:
Where a resolution passed by the House of Commons … is in pursuance of any provision of this Act capable of being confirmed under this section, it may be confirmed by a further resolution of the House of Commons …".
To summarise the procedure: it is carried out by the Commons passing the resolution, by the Lords failing to pass it in the next 10 days, and by the Commons passing it again in another 10 days. Thus, this resolution will be confirmed, whatever that may mean, within a period of less than three weeks.
On the face of it, Clause 74 applies only to commencement orders under Clauses 81 and 82. Although commencement orders can be complicated,


applying to one part of the country, or to different parts of the Bill, and so on, that might not be so bad, although I would say at once that this is a wholly novel form of legislation in this House and, as such, cannot possibly be said to come only within changes in the government of Scotland.
However, I think that it goes further than that. Let us suppose that, under Clause 35, Her Majesty in Council thought it expedient that Clause 74—the Commons resolution clause—should apply to Clause 35. The legislation which then could be applied by Order in Council—approved only by the Commons—to the whole of the United Kingdom is absolutely wide open. On that basis, I think that the provisions of the Bill as printed go far beyond the Long Title, as you, Mr. Speaker, described it in your previous ruling upon a Long Title, the words of which were very much the same.
May I quickly come back to the first point I made? What should be done with a Bill which offends the Long Title in this way? It should be withdrawn.
In 1908 there were two cases of which I have supplied you, Mr. Speaker, and the Clerks of the House with the references. If I may use a quotation from those, Mr. Speaker said in one:
I find that a considerable number of clauses go beyond the title of the Bill. Therefore the Bill cannot be proceeded with.
In the other one, the Speaker said:
This Bill is out of order. Clauses 2 and 3 go beyond the title of the Bill.
Those are not the only two cases in the history of this House when the Speaker has decided that, because a Bill as printed goes beyond the Long Title, it should be withdrawn. There are cases in 1827, 1829, 1835, 1837 and 1937. Indeed, I am not propounding any new proposition whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that a Bill as printed must not go beyond the Notice of Presentation, which is the Long Title to the Bill.

Mr. Ronald Bell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Since the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) was good enough to give me a detailed statement of his point of order this morning, thus providing me with an opportunity to have considered judgment upon the matter and to give a lot of time and thought to it, it might help the House

if I gave my answer to the right hon. Gentleman now.
The provisions of the Bill make clear that the legislative powers which are proposed to be conferred upon the Scottish Assembly are in no way absolute. No power is conferred upon the Assembly to legislate for the remainder of the United Kingdom, except in the context of action concerning devolved matters which relate to Scotland. The purpose stated in the Title is to
make changes in the government of Scotland.
Since, as matters stand at present, government is applied uniformly to Scotland and the other parts of the United Kingdom, I do not think that it would be conceivable to provide that a change in the government of Scotland could in no circumstances have an incidental effect upon the government of other parts of the realm. The important thing is that the second should be seen to be totally dependent on the first and this, in my view, is secured by the existing provisions of the Bill.
Finally, I should remind the House that a relevant precedent exists in the shape of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. The Title of that Act is
to make new provision for the government of Northern Ireland.
Yet, although this makes no mention of the United Kingdom, provisions in the Act confer powers for the making of Orders in Council, subject to the approval of this Parliament, to amend the law of any part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to advance some slightly different arguments of which I think I have given to you, albeit short notice, some notice. My right hon. Friend referred to the terms of the Notice of Presentation, which is the Long Title. My first submission is that there are different criteria for Second Reading and Committee stages. In the case of Second Reading, the Bill must conform with the Notice of Presentation, namely, the Long Title, whereas, when one is considering what amendments may be proposed in Committee, there is the further question of the scope of the measure. Whichever of those tests one applied, I submit that one would find


that the Bill did not comply with them. But I submit that it is the stricter test which applies to Second Reading.
Then I invite your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Clause 35, to which reference has been made. Dealing with it not as a matter of substance but as a matter of order, what is important is that hon. Members in all parts of the House should know at the time of Second Reading what they are voting for. They cannot know in full detail what the Bill contains until it is considered in Committee, but they should know that all its provisions are contained within a clearly-defined vector, or sector. That is the purpose of the rule of the House to which I am appealing now.
Clause 35 bears a deceptive resemblance to the sort of clauses one has seen in a good many Bills. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, you referred to one in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act. These are not uncommon provisions but, in my submission, one must look very carefully at these repeal power clauses to see whether they are truly consequential upon or dependent upon the main provisions.
Those that I have been able to find are all clearly made subordinate to the main provisions of the Act in question. For example, it is said in the Highways Act 1959 that it can only apply to provisions in existing Acts which are inconsistent with or redundant in the light of the provisions in that Act. In the Public Health Act 1875 there are similar limitations. I submit that neither in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act nor in any other Act is any general power given of repeal of other statutes.
But Clause 35 goes as far as that. It is not consequential, in spite of the rubric, which is misleading in this respect. The wording says
Her Majesty may by Order in Council make any"—
I leave out the word "such"—
amendments of the law of the United Kingdom or any part of it … as appear to Her to be necessary or expedient"—
"expedient" is a very wide word—
in consequence of any provision"—
not in this Bill, but—
made by or under any Scottish Assembly Act".

This is not a pawn, or even a bishop: it is a queen that can go any distance in any direction. The Scottish Assembly might pass any Act on any subject within its competence, and under this clause the Secretary of State may then consider the new position that has arisen and make, in respect of all the United Kingdom or any part of it, any new law which he thinks it would be expedient to have in the new context, the new circumstances.
One knows, of course, that usually there is the backstop of the courts. If an order is made which is ultra vires, even though it has the affirmative procedure, the courts can nevertheless lay it aside as being ultra vires. The mischief of this clause is that it is so widely drafted that the courts could never say that anything done under it was ultra vires. It would be impossible to say that, because the clause refers to any part of the law of the United Kingdom which it is deemed expedient to change in the light of any action of the Scottish Parliament. That distinguishes Clause 35 from all the precedents with which one is familar, in private or public Acts, allowing redundant provisions to be repealed. Such a provision must appear in the Notice of Presentation.
I conclude by drawing attention to the Long Title, which provides for
changes in the government of Scotland",
which is the main business of the Bill. It then provides—in Clause 66 and the related schedule—for changes in the functions of certain public bodies. The draftsman thought it necessary to put that into the Long Title because the Bill was not making provision for the governance of Scotland, but was adjusting the functions of public bodies in the light of the changes which the main part of the Bill introduced. If that is so, how much more necessary it is that legislation at large and at two removes should be reflected in the Notice of Presentation, because, were it not for the two points of order that have been raised today, only a handful of hon. Members would have known what they were approving in principle on Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that hon. Members who wish to pursue this point of order will be brief. I have a long list


of those who wish to participate in the debate, and some hon. Members might have to be kept out if the points of order take too long. However, I want to listen to the argument.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If I may continue in the same vein, Mr. Speaker, Clause 1 states:
The following provisions of this Act make changes in the government of Scotland as part of the United Kingdom. They do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it.
Parliament does not have such authority. It is the Crown in Parliament that makes the laws, not Parliament on its own. If, therefore, this preparatory statement is passed, the Royal Prerogative will be circumvented and there will be a change in the law—indeed, in the law-making process—of the United Kingdom as a whole.
To circumvent the Royal Prerogative would, one would have thought, even under the precedents that you quoted, Mr. Speaker, have required a mention in the Long Title of The Bill. There is no such mention. Had Clause 1 read:
They do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of the Queen in Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it",
I should have no criticism of that. But it does not say that. It circumvents enactment by the Sovereign and substitutes enactment by Parliament, which is, to put it mildly, a constitutional novelty which should not pass or be included in the Bill without inclusion in the Long Title and a mention of waiver of prerogative.

Mr. Madden: You may be pleased to know, Mr. Speaker, that my point of order is entirely different from those raised already, and that I shall certainly be more brief.

Last Thursday—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Member's point of order relate to the Bill?

Mr. Madden: No, Mr. Speaker. It is concerned with an entirely different matter.

Mr. Speaker: In that case I shall deal with the hon. Member later, I hope.

Mr. Gow: May I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the foot of page 506 of the

latest edition of "Erskine May," where it is stated:
The objects of a bill are stated in its long title, which should cover everything contained in the bill, as introduced"?
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) has rightly drawn your attention to the fact that the Long Title of the Bill refers to changes in the constitution and functions of certain public bodies. Schedule 13 lists 18 so-called public bodies. You might have thought, Mr. Speaker, that in the definition clause of the Bill we should be told what are public bodies, but the first item listed in Schedule 13 is not a public body at all. Therefore, in my respectful submission, the Long Title is so framed that it cannot include the first Item in Schedule 13, Part I.
That item is, of course, the British Waterways Board. I know that to be a nationalised industry, because it is top on my list as a candidate for denationalisation. Unlike the other bodies, which really are bodies, it is a nationalised industry. I submit, therefore, that the Long Title does not extend to the British Waterways Board because that is not a public body whereas the other items in the schedule are.
That is a defect in the Long Title of the Bill. If it had been intended to cover the British Waterways Board, the Long Title should have referred to a nationalised industry and not to a public body. That is another reason for the Bill to be withdrawn.

Mr. Tebbit: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I understood you rightly, you based the ruling you gave earlier upon the argument that it was clear from the Bill that the powers under Clause 35 could be used only in matters which were clearly and specifically concerned with the government of Scotland. If we discussed this entirely in a vacuum it would be difficult to make the point that that conceivably may not be so. For example, it would undoubtedly be in order—indeed, I understand that it is the intention of some hon. Members—to move amendments to grant certain powers of taxation to the Scottish Assembly.
You will, then, perceive that if, for example, the Scottish Assembly changed the duty on, say, Scotch whisky, and by


some stroke of genius decided to reduce it, and that action caused difficulty in the trafficking of Scotch whisky across the border, or a fall in the sales of Scotch whisky in England, it might be deemed expedient—indeed, even necessary—to take powers under Clause 35 to introduce orders in this House to reduce or change the taxation of the United Kingdom—that is, to change English taxation—in direct consequence of an act of the Scottish Assembly. That, falling directly under the powers of Clause 35, would clearly be expedient.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield pointed out, Clause 35 is drawn so widely that it would not be possible to rule that it was ultra vires. But a change in the law which would enable the taxation of England to be decided or altered by Order in Council, subject only to the normal procedures of such orders, would be a change in the law of England and the government of England. Therefore, surely this Bill is out of order.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened with great care to the arguments advanced by the hon. Gentlemen. It so happens that they are all covered by the consideration which I had already given this morning before I gave my ruling to the House, with the exception of the point raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who thought that the Royal Prerogative was being challenged by the Bill. The hon. Member knows "Erskine May" as well as he knows Holy Scripture—I realise that—and he will not be surprised, therefore, to be reminded that "Erskine May", in Chapter 1, says:
Parliament is composed of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. These several powers collectively form the legislature; and as distinct members of the constitution they exercise functions and enjoy privileges peculiar to each.

Later—

Mr. George Gardiner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is entirely separate from the matter raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) but, as some of his submission overlaps that of which I gave you notice, I may be able to curtail it.
I submit that we should not proceed with the Scotland Bill this day on the around that it is defective by including another clause that lies outside the scope of the Bill as defined in its Notice of Presentation and in its Long Title. Both Notice of Presentation and the Long Title read:
A Bill to provide for changes in the government of Scotland and in the constitution and functions of certain public bodies.
In my submission the clause which falls outside the scope of that is Clause 82, providing for a referendum and, depending upon its result, for certain steps to be taken to repeal this legislation by Order in Council.
I wish to stress, Mr. Speaker, that in making this submission I am in no way concerned with the merits or otherwise of holding a referendum. In fact, I supported the reasoned amendment that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) tabled to the Second Reading of the Scotland and Wales Bill, which secured from the Government the pledge that a referendum would be held. I am also among those who have added their names to the first amendment on today's Order Paper seeking a separate referendum for the people of the Shetland Islands. So my submission to you, Mr. Speaker, must not be taken as opposition to the holding of such referenda, by proper constitutional means, should the appropriate point ever be reached.
My point arises from the fact, laid down in "Erskine May", that there should not be provisions in a Bill which are not covered and authorised by its Notice of Presentation and Title. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said, there are precedents for Mr. Speaker ruling that where a Bill contains clauses falling outside its Long Title, that Bill cannot proceed. I raise the issue of the inclusion of referendum and repeal provisions in a Bill in which no provision is made for such practice in the Long Title.
You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, of the rulings by Mr. Speaker in 1893 and 1912 when Instructions were put down that Government of Ireland Bills should not come into force until approved by a majority of the electorate in referenda. In 1912 Mr. Speaker said of one such Instruction:
I have come to the conclusion that an ad referendum is a matter of such transcendent


importance that it could not be brought within the scope of the Bill by an Instruction to the Committee. I know that the ad referendum has been included in the provisions of some Private Bills enabling the ratepayers to decide by a vote whether or not they should adopt a particular Act which imposed a charge upon them. But this Instruction is a proposal to enable the electors to override the decision of this House; to go over the heads of the elected representatives of the people, and to submit to the electors generally whether a Bill of this great magnitude should come into force or not. That, I think, is quite beyond the scope of the Bill, and could not be brought within the scope of the Bill by an Instruction."—[Official Report, 11th June 1912; Vol. XXXIX, c. 743.]
In 1920, during discussion of another Government of Ireland Bill, the Chairman ruled that an amendment with the same intent lay outside the scope of the Bill and so was out of order.
These precedents were cited by my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) on 10th February this year during discussion of the Scotland and Wales Bill when he submitted to the Chair that in selecting for consideration the new clause in the name of the Leader of the House providing for referenda to be held in Scotland and Wales before the provisions of the Act should take effect the Chair was:
departing from the precedents very firmly set by past rulings established in strictly comparable circumstances.
On that occasion the Chair did not accept his submission, largely on the grounds that:
the Referendum Act 1975 has largely destroyed the basis upon which the previous rulings were given."—[Official Report, 10th February 1977; Vol. 925, c. 1674–78.]
There was considerable concern in all parts of the House over the implications of this, and a motion was tabled in the names of many right hon. and hon. Members seeking to prevent this ruling from being taken subsequently as a precedent. But, before that motion was moved, you, Mr. Speaker, stated:
I am, therefore, ruling that the decision referred to in the motion is not one that is regarded as a binding precedent for future legislation."—[Official Report, 30th March 1977; Vol. 929, c. 538.]
The consequence of that ruling is that the status quo ante is restored. The earlier precedents I have cited, therefore, are still directly relevant to our situation today. They make it clear that referendum provisions should not be added to a Bill by amendment or

through the mechanism of an Instruction if they fall outside the terms of its Notice of Presentation and Long Title. If an amendment is out of order by virtue of its contents in relation to the Long Title, so must be a Bill with a clause of the same content that is equally uncovered. The referendum on continued membership of the European Community referred to by the Chairman on 10th February was, of course, conducted as a consequence of legislation that dealt specifically with that matter in its Long Title.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, Clause 82 of this Bill, presented for Second Reading today, provides that
Before a draft of the first order to be made under section 81 of this Act … a referendum shall be held",
and, if it subsequently
appears to the Secretary of State, having regard to the answers given in the referendum and all other circumstances, that this Act should not be brought into effect he may lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council",
and, if
approved by a resolution of each House",
that legislation would be repealed. This constitutes a change in the procedure for repealing legislation passed by both Houses of Parliament and after Royal Assent. As such, it cannot be said to fall within the Long Title's provision for
changes in the government of Scotland
Or
in the constitution and functions of certain public bodies".
It concerns the very procedure by which United Kingdom legislation is given effect, and no cover is offered for this in the wording of the Notice of Presentation or Long Title. Therefore, so long as Clause 82 remains in the Bill before us, that Bill's Long Title is defective. We should not proceed to give it Second Reading consideration.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, therefore, to rule accordingly so that the Bill may be withdrawn and, if the Leader of the House so wishes, re-presented to us in a correct and constitutional form.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman did me the courtesy of supplying me in writing this morning with the very arguments that he has now advanced to the House. This has given me an opportunity to consider them at length.
The House will recall that on 30th March last, when it was about to enter into debate on the motion criticising the Chairman of Ways and Means for having selected a new clause to the Scotland and Wales Bill which provided for a referendum, I made a statement, as the hon. Gentleman says. I said the words that the hon. Gentleman said, but I prefaced them by saying that I believed that the Chairman had been entirely correct in what he did, and the House did not dissent from that. I am still of the same belief and could not with consistency now rule that such a provision is out of order when included in the Bill itself.

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will recall, a number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House were involved in the discussion on the last point that you mentioned. What I am concerned about in submitting this point of order is that, as the matter has now been raised in relation to the Long Title of the Bill, which I, for instance, do not hold to be defective—other hon. Gentlemen may share my view on this—I am anxious that the rights of the House to reconsider the question of the referendum clause itself should not be lost because you have now ruled that it does not properly arise under the problem of the Long Title.
As you will know, at the time, as a result of the Chairman's ruling, a lot of controversy arose, and I believe that at one time a motion was on the Order Paper which was later removed after certain consultations had taken place. It was decided not to take the matter any further at that time. But, as new legislation is now before the House, I think that those of us who had an interest in this matter should now, without prejudice, be able to raise it again with you, although you have now ruled in connection with the Long Title of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I think it possible that the hon. Gentleman may have misinterpreted what I said. The right of amendments in Committee is not affected by my statement in any way. The motion on the Order Paper to which the hon. Member has referred was withdrawn in the Chamber after a very short debate—in fact, after a statement by myself.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be possible for you to have agreed with the ruling of the Chairman of Ways and Means on that occasion, which was given after Second Reading and in relation to an amendment, while still adopting the stricter rule which relates to conformity with the Notice of Presentation, because on this occasion my right hon. Friend has raised this matter before Second Reading and when the stricter rule applies? Therefore, you could agree with the Chairman that he had given the right ruling on that occasion and still, quite logically, apply the stricter rule now.

Mr. Speaker: I have looked with great care at the precedents of my predecessors and I have examined this matter in depth, but I must stand by the ruling that I have given.

HON. MEMBERS (REGISTER OF INTERESTS)

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to draw your attention to exchanges which took place last Thursday between my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) and myself concerning newspaper reports that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had entered into a contract on behalf of his party with a public relations firm called Good Relations, in order to promote the careers of three members of the Shadow Cabinet. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that at that time the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said:
I am always fascinated to learn of my various activities, but if I ever had any activity of this sort I would be a very remarkable person to have it. I cannot imagine that I ever had anything to do with it before. I know nothing about it and I cannot understand what on earth is being talked about."— [Official Report, 10th November 1977; Vol. 938, c 854.]
The next day in The Guardian of 11th November an executive of Good Relations was reported as saying that he
had a meeting with Mr. Whitelaw earlier this year.
He is quoted as saying:
We were talking about the whole area of public relations and he told me that he thought the Tories needed a better image.


I later wrote to him and he passed my letter on to the party chairman…".

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can understand a dispute about what was or what was not said, but what is the point of order for me to rule on?

Mr. Madden: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I should be most grateful if, in the interests of all hon. Members, you could endeavour to ensure that either the right hon. Gentleman, or, indeed, the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition made a statement so that we could all know whether the careers and parliamentary duties of three members of the Shadow Cabinet are being promoted by a private public relations agency.

Mr. Pym: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman gave notice to my right hon. Friend that he intended to raise this point?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know. May I say that I do many things at the behest of the House, but it is not for me to act as a go-between in a matter of this sort.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: To save the time of the House, unless there is objection I shall put the Question on Motions Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 and 9 together.

Ordered,

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 3) Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 4) Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Various Goods) (Termination of Imperial Quantities) Order 1977, be referred to a Standing Committee on Satutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1973 (Bread) Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Housing (Amounts of Approved Expense) (Scotland) Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants (Otters) Order 1977 (S.I. 1977, No. 1700) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the Mink (Keeping) Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the Coypus (Keeping) Order he referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Foot.]

SCOTLAND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Leo Abse: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate, after the arcane discussions that have taken place, to put a point of order to you, but mine is brief and will, I hope, be understood by you as being necessary.
You have evidently decided not to call the reasoned amendment in my name and the names of 50 other hon. Members on both sides of the House. It might well be understood here that, with our esoteric procedures, there is difficulty on your part in calling such an amendment, despite the opinions expressed on both sides of the House, but it will be difficult for people in the Shetland Islands, upon whose good will we depend so much, bringing in as they do more than 60 per cent. of the oil that is needed to maintain and stabilise the economy of our country, to understand how something of such urgent importance to themselves could, on the face of it, be perfunctorily placed on one side.
I therefore ask that the reasons for your decision be spelt out so that the Islanders may understand that the fact that you have found that you cannot call this amendment does not mean that the issues that the amendment raises are excluded from consideration by this House, and that the Chairman of Ways and Means will be able to reconsider the issue when the matter comes before the House during the Committee stage.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has referred to the people of the Shetland Islands who might find difficulty in understanding the way in which we conduct our affairs—and they will not be alone in that. I see that there is also a reference here to Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom. I cannot commit the Chairman of Ways and Means. He has complete discretion in the selection of amendments, but I am sure that he will have taken note of what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Further to that point of

order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the ruling that you have just given, was your reference to Northern Ireland intended to suggest that the Shetland Islands, like Northern Ireland, are separate from Scotland? I do not believe that it would be understood to mean that, and I doubt whether you intended to imply that.

Mr. Speaker: I had no such intention, and I am perfectly innocent in this matter. The House knows that I never express views on legislation that is before the House. I have to maintain the rules of order, and that is enough of a task. I certainly did not intend any interpretation to be made outside the House about Shetland and Ireland in connection with the Scottish issue.

4.28 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he opened the Second Reading debate on the Scotland and Wales Bill, stated that that Bill had been prepared on the basis of four guiding principles. As those four guiding principles also underlie the proposals in the Scotland Bill, I make no apology for quoting them again at the beginning of this debate.
The first principle was a respect for the diversity and distinctive traditions of Scotland and Wales—and, of course, the Wales Bill dealing with the Welsh situation will be debated tomorrow; secondly, the conservation of the economic and political unity of the United Kingdom; thirdly, the continuing and unimpaired sovereignty of Parliament, which is what devolution is about; and, fourthly, fairness to the whole of the United Kingdom.
Within those principles, what this Bill represents is a major constitutional change. I think it is perfectly proper and sensible for the House to approach any major constitutional change with a good deal of care and give it a good deal


of consideration. I do not complain about that. But I hope that we do not approach this Bill, as I think certain Members of the House approached the previous Bill, on the basis that it is not possible to change the existing constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom, that what we have at the minute is a perfect representation of the processes of government and that no change could be for anything but the worse.
There are many Western countries with traditions of democracy which organise government in a way very different from that in which we organise government at present in the United Kingdom. In particular, the kind of centralised government system that we have in the United Kingdom at present is not much repeated among other Western industrialised countries. In most of these other countries—and we believe that this should apply to the United Kingdom as well—there is a great deal more decentralisation and devolution of power from the centre. We start from the basis that there is a very strong case for making the same kind of arrangements now in the United Kingdom.
Any change, of course, should be well considered and should have the full attention of this House; but the issues underlying the Bill have been before the House and the country throughout the life of this Parliament, and indeed very much longer than that. In the case of Scotland there has been interest in the subject of devolution for at least 50 years.
To come to the more recent history of the matter, following the Kilbrandon Report the Government issued a series of White Papers which have examined the issues and, to some extent, also narrowed the issues.
May I mention very briefly what we have done in the way of consulting the House, and indeed consulting the country as a whole. We published a consultative paper in June 1974. We issued a White Paper in September 1974 describing the outline of the proposed scheme for devolution, and then a further White Paper in November 1975 which filled out the details of the scheme. The White Paper of August 1976 made certain adjustments in the proposals in the light of comments made in the House and elsewhere. We considered a Bill in the last parliamentary

Session, and we had another parliamentary statement in July of this year which again made certain modifications in our proposals.
I do not believe that any major Bill introduced in the House in recent years has had such a long history of detailed consultation both within the House and with interests outside. At each stage of consultation the Government have listened attentively to comment and we have made changes in our proposals in the light of those comments. Indeed, in the period since the timetable motion on the Scotland and Wales Bill fell last Session we have reviewed further in the light of the debates in the House—and I shall explain some of the consequences of that later—what the provisions of the Bill ought to be. We have had discussions with the Liberal Party, with other parties, and with many of our own supporters. We have in fact had a very comprehensive series of discussions over recent months with anyone who was prepared to accept that there was a constructive need for devolution proposals and anyone who was prepared to make sensible and constructive suggestions in the context of a workable and worthwhile scheme.

Mr. David Price: Does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that the publication of the Government's White Paper, "Devolution: Financing the Devolved Services", which has appeared since the original Scotland and Wales Bill was before the House, has put an entirely new light on the whole issue because in it the Government clearly reject devolving taxes?

Mr. Millan: We did before. But I shall come to the question of finance later. I am concentrating at the moment on the point that there has been most detailed and comprehensive discussion on the proposals in the Bill, and even this short recital of the history gives the lie to those who say that the scheme has not been adequately considered. Incidentally, it also gives the lie to the charges of inflexibility on the part of the Government, because we have made certain substantial changes in the proposals that we are bringing forward.
Although I do not wish at this stage to deal with the amendment tabled by the official Opposition, I must say that it is


absolutely scandalous, in the Scottish context, and in view of Scottish opinion in particular, that, at this very late stage in the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "In the Bill?"]—at this late stage in the debate—all that the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition and her Friends are proposing is a continuation of discussion with, no doubt, the objective of preventing the House from ever reaching a conclusion on this matter. We are determined that the House should reach a conclusion on this matter, and that is what the Bill is about.
Secondly, if we are to make a constitutional change, with all its implications, I believe that the change should be on a basis which will give any Scottish Assembly a worthwhile range of powers. It would be worse than useless—it would be damaging both to the United Kingdom and to Scotland—if we were to produce, as a result of legislative changes of this nature an Assembly with only a very limited capacity to take decisions and act on them.
All that we have had from the Opposition in recent months in the way of ideas—if one can call them that—about what ought to be done with regard to Scottish government has been some suggestion that we should have an Assembly in Scotland with absolutely no effective powers of decision-making at all. I believe that to be completely unacceptable to Scottish opinion. More than that, I believe that it would be very damaging to government in Scotland and in the United Kingdom as a whole.
I would rather we did nothing than that we introduced a Bill for an Assembly with no more than the limited consultative and advisory powers, which are now, as I understand it, the kind of powers that the official Opposition suggest that any Assembly should have. If there were ever to be a recipe for conflict, I believe that that would be it.
Thirdly, I believe that, if we are to make a change of this major nature, we ought to be as clear as we can be that the change commands popular support. The evidence is overwhelming that the Scottish people want more power of decision-making in Scotland than the present system can give. There is equally overwhelming evidence that they do not want separation and independence. They

want to remain part of the United Kingdom. This is not simply something which is demonstrated by public opinion polls, although they reinforce my view of Scottish opinion; it must be known to anyone who has been engaged for any period of time in Scottish politics.
This is an issue of tremendous importance in Scotland. It has been so for many years, and it will not go away. It is not an issue that will disappear. It is not an issue which will comfortably go to sleep, if it is neglected or set aside, and allow us to continue as if nothing had happened.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I am following the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but I wonder whether he could tell me, as an English Members, what I should say to my constituents about this legislation? What possible benefits can accrue to them from it?

Mr. Millan: I shall deal a little later with the English dimension. But if the hon. Gentleman's constituents are, as I believe, concerned with the unity of the United Kingdom, I would advise them not to ignore the feeling in Scotland on the question of devolution.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: May I ask my right hon. Friend, arising out of that question, what precisely the Members of Parliament from Scotland will do in this House while legislation is being carried through the Assembly in Scotland?

Mr. Millan: If I may be allowed to develop my argument, I shall come to some of these—

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith (Glasgow, Hill-head): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Millan: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to answer one question at a time? Mr. Speaker stated that a large number of Members wanted to speak in this debate. There was some complaint about it being only a one-day debate. We have lost some time—I am not complaining about that—with points of order, but if hon. Members keep interrupting me my speech will be longer than I should wish.
May I deal with the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has raised with me?


I think that he is referring to the question whether Scottish Members of this House, when the Assembly is operating, should have full power as Members to deal with legislation in this House. If that is what he is saying, I would simply say at this stage that we do not believe—and Kilbrandon made the same point—that there is any effective or practicable way of having Members in this Chamber whose powers are limited only to certain bits of legislation passing through this House and who are not fully involved in all the legislation going through this House.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Will the tight hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Millan: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to continue? I was just finishing the point about whether there is popular support in Scotland for a measure of this sort. I said that that is now well established and, in my view, it cannot be seriously in question. May I also say that those who have a doubt about that will, of course, have plenty of opportunity, during the referendum campaign following the passage of the Bill, to test Scottish opinion. For my part, I have very little doubt about what the Scots will say about it.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Speaking as one whose vote tonight and on Wednesday is by no means yet certainly decided, I should be most grateful if my right hon. Friend would indicate to me what he regards, for the purposes of Clause 82, as a satisfactory vote in the referendum—whether he would consider that a vote of 50 per cent, of the population, giving a bare majority in favour of the referendum, was sufficient to justify the introduction of this legislation, or whether he will accept, in the course of our proceedings, an amendment to the Bill which would require at least a minimum number of people participating in the referendum to justify the commencement of the legislation.

Mr. Millan: I want to say something about the referendum a little later, but if my hon. Friend will look at Clauses 81 and 82 taken together he will see that, even after the referendum, the commencement order depends on a decision of this House. We shall, of course, consider amendments when we reach the Committee stage of the Bill, but I do not think

that I want to give an answer on that point now.
I wish now to turn to the Bill itself—

Mr. Raison: I wish to go back to the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). It is, as the Secretary of State must be aware, of fundamental importance in this argument. Can the Secretary of State at least put one matter on record? If the Bill goes through, Scottish Members of Parliament will no longer be able to ask Questions here about health, housing, education, and so on. They will no longer be able to raise Adjournment debates about those subjects. The reason is that those matters will not be within the competence of the Secretary of State and, therefore, there will be no answerability. Will the Secretary of State make quite clear that what I have said is true?

Mr. Millan: What the hon. Gentleman says is not true, but I am not aware that at the moment Scottish Members are particularly enthusiastic about having Adjournment debates on English education matters. [Hon. Members: "Scottish."] I do not imagine that that situation will change.

Mr. Raison: rose—

Mr. Millan: If the hon. Member will allow me to continue as regards Scottish matters, of course, it will not be possible to raise with the Secretary of State for Scotland matters for which he is not responsible. That is absolutely rudimentary, and I am surprised that there should be any doubt about that.
I turn now to the Bill itself. I do not intend, in view of the time available for the debate, to describe the Bill in any detail, but I wish to say something about the major respects in which the present Bill differs from the Scotland and Wales Bill.
I should like, first, to make a general comment about the Bill taken as a whole. Like its predecessor, the Scotland Bill provides for a directly-elected Assembly with powers to make primary and subordinate legislation. Arrangements for elections to the Assembly and qualifications for membership remain as before. An extensive range of functions is given to the Scottish administration—most


aspects of local government, health, education, social work, and most aspects of the physical environment. But these are functions which, I emphasise, are domestic to Scotland and on which decisions can be taken by a Scottish Assembly absolutely without detriment, damage or disturbance to other parts of the United Kingdom.
In dealing with powers and functions of government where there is a strong United Kingdom interest—for example, in economic and industrial powers—the Bill does not provide for devolution to the Assembly. For instance, the industrial functions of the Scottish Development Agency will be carried out under guidelines which will be laid down by the Secretary of State. There need be no feeling in the House, as I understand still exists among certain hon. Gentlemen, that any devolution of powers to Scotland must necessarily be at the expense of another part of the United Kingdom. In my view that is not so. We are legislating for a considerable increase in decision-making in Scotland, but I do not believe the Bill will act to the detriment of the political and economic unity of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Galbraith: The Secretary of State keeps on saying—he has said it several times—that the Assembly will have more power in Scotland. Can he explain the extent to which the Assembly will be able to legislate more widely than the existing Scottish Grand Committee? It appears that there will be precious little difference between the two.

Mr. Millan: The Scottish Grand Committee legislates only within the context of the House as a whole. It does not have any separate legislative power and the difference between the Scottish Grand Committee and the Scottish Assembly provided for by the Bill is that the latter will be able to legislate without reference to the United Kingdom Parliament on the subjects for which the functions are devolved.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Secretary of State has mentioned the guidelines for bodies such as the SDA, the authority for the Scottish new towns, and so on. The members of these boards are, we understand, to be appointed by the Scottish Executive and

the Scottish Assembly under guidelines to be laid down by the Secretary of State. Can he say precisely what happens, and who does it, if these agencies do not follow the positive guidelines laid down by the Secretary of State?

Mr. Millan: There are questions of vires which arise, and I shall say something about vires in a moment. There is also the question of override powers, and I shall say something about those, too, if I am allowed to continue with my speech instead of answering detailed points.
I was saying that, rather than try to go through the Bill in any kind of comprehensive way, it would be useful for the House if I were to describe briefly some of the improvements in the Bill compared with the Scotland and Wales Bill of last Session.
First, I believe that having separate Bills for Scotland and Wales is in itself a very considerable improvement and will make consideration of the Bills by the House that much more comprehensible.
Secondly, to come to the question of Government intervention in the legislative or executive actions of the Scottish administration, the new scheme that is provided for in this Bill considerably reduces the scope for dispute between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Executive. However carefully we draw lines between devolved and non-devolved matters, there are bound to be circumstances in which the legally proper exercise of devolved powers may have unacceptable repercussions on matters affecting the whole of the United Kingdom.
The Government are anxious that the area of intervention should be restricted to what is necessary in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole, and the Bill has been redrafted to make clear that these powers will be available only where the activities of the devolved administration would adversely affect matters for which the Government will remain directly responsible throughout the United Kingdom—for example, defence, trade, the economy and industrial relations. These powers will not be employed in relation to the English dimension, if I may call it that, of devolved matters such as health and education. I want also to make clear


that in any case the exercise of these powers will require the approval of Parliament—the reference is in Clause 36.

Mr. Leon Brittan: rose—

Mr. Millan: I ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that this time is coming out of the rest of the debate.

Mr. Brittan: That may be so, but the Secretary of State might remember that that is because of the scandalous action of the Government in reducing the time for debate to one day. My point is a simple, factual one: will the Secretary of State explain precisely the difference between the overriding provisions in this Bill and the provisions in the Scotland and Wales Bill as regards the prevention of actions which impinge on the non-devolved ones? The explanation that has been given does not seem to stand with the text of the Bill

Mr. Millan: I have just given the explanation. The drafting of the previous Bill allowed for intervention in a case where the actions of the Assembly were considered by the United Kingdom Government to have detrimental effects on functions, such as education or health, which, of course, remain the responsibility of this Parliament for England. In the case of an action by the Scottish Assembly in relation to a function which is devolved to that Assembly, the new drafting reserves power of intervention only where such action affects matters which are for the Parliament of the United Kingdom as a whole—for example, trade and defence. It does say that, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at it more closely. We shall no doubt decide the detail of this matter on Clause 36.
Thirdly, we have provided a clearer definition of powers because the Scotland and Wales Bill contained specific controls over the exercise of certain devolved functions where the Government had certain reserve powers or where powers devolved to the Assembly were conditional on approvals or qualification written into the Bill. We have removed many of these in this Bill with the intention of making a clearer division of functions between the Scottish Assembly, on the one hand, and the United Kingdom

Government, on the other, so that we can reduce the area of possible conflict between the Scottish Executive and United Kingdom Ministers.
Let me give three examples of matters that have been dropped from the Bill. There were powers in the previous Bill regarding private and public sector rents; there was a power in the previous Bill regarding model schemes for rent and rate rebates; and there was a power related to Scottish teachers' pay. These are all potentially matters of considerable importance and sensitivity, and provisions relating to them have been dropped from the present Bill.
We have also simplified the operations of the scheme relating to EEC and other international obligations, which were reserved completely in the previous Bill. We believe on further study that the provisions of the previous Bill would have caused unnecessary delay and friction between the United Kingdom Government the Scottish Executive. Therefore, in this Bill we have devolved responsibility for implementation of these international obligations but at the same time we have taken, in Clause 62, concurrent powers for the United Kingdom Government to implement any agreement at their own hand if desirable or necessary. In other words, at the end of the day this House can see that these international obligations are discharged, but there is no question of removing them completely from the scope of the Scottish Assembly.
Next, I refer to the question of vires, which caused considerable argument during the passage of the previous Bill. We have again improved the provisions. The Scotland and Wales Bill provided that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should decide whether an Assembly Bill was within the Assembly's legislative competence if this issue were to arise before the Bill received Royal Assent. This provision is retained in the present Bill, in Clause 20, but it now contains machinery for the conduct of legal proceedings in the courts involving devolution issues arising after Royal Assent. Although these issues can be considered and determined in any court, they may be referred to higher courts, and it is now provided that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will act as the final court of reference.
I remind the House that the original argument, which particularly adhered to questions of pre-Assent secrutiny, was regarding political intervention in matters of vires. The provisions in this Bill completely remove the possibility of political intervention by the Secretary of State and make these matters ultimately matters for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
The next matter which I mention briefly—again, we had very long debates on the subject during the Committee stage of the previous Bill—is that of premature dissolution of the Assembly. There was a feeling in the House that, unless there was a power for premature dissolution, the Assembly might become unworkable because of changes in the political complexion of the Assembly, owing to by-elections or other reasons, and we have now provided in Clause 4 a new provision, with certain safeguards, allowing for premature dissolution.
Finally, on the changes that we have made in the Bill, I want particularly to mention the question of the referendum. The Bill as it now stands incorporates the provision for a referendum, which will be held after the Bill has been enacted and must be held before it is brought into operation. I repeat, therefore, a point that I made earlier in response to an intervention. There can be no question of an Assembly settlement for Scotland being imposed against the wishes of the Scottish people, because they will have the opportunity to make a decision about this matter in the referendum, which will be held after the passage of the Bill.
The provisions generally are similar to those which we had described during the Committee stage of the previous Bill. As the Bill will principally affect those people living in Scotland, the referendum will be held in Scotland only—I say that for clarification—and the full arrangements for the referendum, including the question to be put, are set out in the Bill. The details are in a schedule to the Bill.
We believe that the incorporation of the referendum provision, which will no doubt engender a fair amount of discussion in the House, is a considerable improvement on the previous Bill by making the final decision on the Bill subject

to a popular vote in Scotland itself, although, as I said earlier, the commencement order for the Bill will also have a parliamentary procedure attached to it.

Mr. George Cunningham: What is to happen after the first General Election in which a majority of the United Kingdom Members in this House are, say, Labour, but a majority of the non-Scottish Members are, say, Conservative? Are the Government seriously imagining that, in perpetuity, 45 million Englishmen will put up with the situation in which the Government of the United Kingdom is to be determined on some occasions by those 71 Scottish Members? If that is so, is it not perfectly clear that the right to vote in this referendum ought to belong to the whole of the people of the United Kingdom and not only to the people of Scotland?

Mr. Millan: I do not believe that that follows from the premise of my hon. Friend's question, but in any case I do not accept the premise. These matters can, and no doubt will, be discussed in considerable detail during the Committee stage. But I have already stated the Government's view—it has not changed since the previous Bill—as to those who should be entitled to vote on the question in the referendum. I have explained that in the Government's view it is not practicable to have certain hon. Members excluded from voting or debating particular issues that come before this House.

Mr. John Mendelson: My right hon. Friend keeps on saying that these matters will be considered during the Committee stage and that he, as the principal Scottish member of the Government, does not have time to deal with them now. But as the Government have adopted the rather unusual procedure of not allowing any Committee stage discussion if the Bill receives its Second Reading, since they propose to introduce a guillotine motion post haste, there may never be a time when my right hon. Friend will have an opportunity to go into these matters. In these circumstances, is not my right hon. Friend treating the House in a cavalier fashion by refusing to answer these questions?

Mr. Millan: My hon. Friend should read the timetable motion. In our view,


it provides for ample opportunity to discuss these matters at the Committee stage. My hon. Friend's argument can be presented again when we come to the debate on the timetable motion. It is possible to deal with all these matters in considerable detail, but for me to do so now would be unpopular with those hon. Members who want to make speeches themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am delighted that the House is so anxious to listen to me at length, but I want to pass to another matter on which there was considerable debate when we considered the previous Bill, and I want to say what has happened since that Bill was before us. I refer to the question of finance.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: rose—

Mr. Millan: If I have constant interruptions, this speech will go on for a very long time.

Mr. Baker: May I refer the Secretary of State to the question put to him by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham)? On what constitutional principle is the right hon. Gentleman acting that allows Scotland to have considerable devolved powers and a separate Assembly, yet still allows its over-representation here? Many English Members feel that this is basically unfair. On what constitutional principle is the right hon. Gentleman acting to justify this anomaly?

Mr. Millan: The position regarding the number of Members remains as it was explained by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House during the debates on the Scotland and Wales Bill. We do not believe that the Bill before us, taken by itself, provides justification for reducing the number of Scottish Members in this House. However, the House can come to that matter again in Committee.
I was about to say something about the financial arrangements, because one of the criticisms during our consideration of the previous Bill concerned the lack of a provision for any independent revenue-raising power on the part of the Scottish Assembly. Considerable further thought has been given to that matter since the previous Bill was debated. The Government published a White Paper in July this year. I shall not attempt to go

over the general arguments adduced in it. I simply say that the Government have never as a matter of principle opposed the granting of marginal tax powers.
I would go further and say that there would be many advantages if we could produce a satisfactory marginal tax power for the Scottish Assembly. I believe that it could only be marginal, because we are funding the Assembly on an expenditure basis, on needs for the functions for which the Assembly will be responsible, rather than on a revenue basis, which is the basis that would be adopted if we were looking to have the amount of money going to the Assembly based on the amount of revenue raised in Scotland.
Therefore, I believe that all that we have been talking about in all the argument that we have had about tax-raising powers has been marginal tax-raising powers. But if we can find satisfactory powers I think that that would be an advantage. We have described in the White Paper the various tax powers that we have considered in considerable detail. There are considerable disadvantages in all of them.
We can return to this matter in Committee, but at present we remain firmly convinced that there is no real alternative to the block fund system of financing the Assembly. If we are to continue with the block fund, as we believe we must, it is important to make the arrangements for its operation as satisfactory as we can. In particular, it is important that we try to reduce the area in which there may then be argument between the Assembly Executive and the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. David Price: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the absolute heart of parliamentary power is the power to control supply and vote taxes, and that devolution is about that? If he is not prepared to devolve that, surely it is a complete charade to talk about devolution at all?

Mr. Millan: If the hon. Gentleman or anyone else can produce sensible proposals on this matter, we can consider them during the passage of the Bill. But the Government's conclusions were set out in considerable detail in the White Paper of July this year.
It is important that these matters are dealt with at length in the White Paper.
If the Assembly is to be financed by a block fund, we should try to improve the practical arrangements as much as we can. In particular, the Government recognise that there is a need for good information about needs and standards of public service in the various parts of the United Kingdom during the block fund negotiations. Therefore, we intend to consult the Assembly about arrangements for setting up an independent advisory body to collect such information and advise both the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Executive. In my view, in practice, that advice would be generally available. The statement that the Secretary of State would have to lay before the House on the financial arrangements, under Clause 46, would make that inevitable. I hope that that arrangement will make the methods of determining the block fund a good deal more explicit, and their fairness more demonstrable, than would be the case without the independent advisory body.
I think that I have already said that if the Assembly wishes to bring forward ideas about marginal tax powers we shall certainly be willing to discuss them with it. We believe that it would help the Assembly as well as this House in the planning of public expenditure if we could settle the levels of public expenditure in Scotland for more than a year at a time—say, on a four-year basis—by means of a formula system. That is something that we shall provide when the Assembly is established.

Mr. Abse: Will my right hon. Friend explain how such an advisory body would take into account the needs of the whole Kingdom, and what guarantee there would be that other regions would have their fair share? Apparently a whole administrative machinery is to be set up with the consequence that there will be continued pressure that the Assembly should have a larger share that may be based upon chauvinism and not upon need.

Mr. Millan: We intend similar arrangements for Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about England?"] As I have already said, one of the advantages

from the English point of view of having the independent advisory body collecting the information, which will be not simply about Scotland and Wales but about the United Kingdom as a whole, is that the basis upon which the settlements are financed as between the United Kingdom Government and the respective Assemblies will be a good deal more explicit than it would otherwise be. I hope that that will make a considerable difference from the English point of view as well.
In the last few minutes I have gone over some of the important changes that have taken place in discussions on the Scotland and Wales Bill in preparation for this Bill.

Mr. Fred Evans: My right hon. Friend has gone to considerable trouble to paint in glowing colours the alterations that have been made since we debated the Scotland and Wales Bill. However, had it not been for the pressures put on the Government we would have had the Bill, the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill, with all its inherent faults which the Government have now discovered. Is it not just as likely that in this Mark II version there are just as many dangers and false philosophies in its approach to devolution as there were in the original Bill? When we were discussing the Scotland and Wales Bill the Leader of the House practically told us "You will have the Bill and nothing but the Bill". It seems that the same attitude is being taken today.

Mr. Millan: My hon. Friend can share the credit for the changes that have been made. We have made considerable changes and we have considerably improved the Bill.
I return to the question whether it is possible to have a satisfactory system of political devolution in the United Kingdom within the political and economic unity of the United Kingdom. I believe that it is possible and that the Bill represents a satisfactory and workable arrangement which will provide a considerable improvement in decision making for Scotland. I believe that it will do that without detriment to the rest of the United Kingdom.
I warn the House and those who take a different view that there is a danger in saying to the Scottish people that they


must choose between the status quo and separation. I hope that hon. Members will be aware of the danger of saying that that is the only choice.
The Scottish people want more decision making in Scotland. They want an Assembly. They want matters involving Scottish interests and circumstances to be decided in Scotland. They do not want separation. They do not want to be put in the position where the choice is between the status quo and independence. I ask hon. Members to weigh that carefully before they decide how they will vote on the Bill.
Over a period of many years the House has recognised, in the arrangements that it has made through the Scottish Office and through the office of the Secretary of State, that there are special Scottish circumstances. Governments of both parties have recognised that there is a special history and tradition and a special way of doing things in Scotland which must be recognised. We cannot deal with these different characteristics and diversities of the Scottish situation by continuing to pile more and more powers on to the Secretary of State for Scotland. From that point of view, we have almost reached the end of the road.
If we are not to pile yet more powers on the Secretary of State, the most sensible and satisfactory way in which we can meet the legitimate needs of the Scottish people is to set up an Assembly, as provided for in the Bill.
Our proposals are securely based on the continuing unity of the United Kingdom. That is what the vast majority of the Scottish people want. Within the continuing unity there is room for diversity and for giving greater scope for the expression of Scottish identity. That is what the Scottish people desire. It is what our proposals for political devolution are all about.
We propose, within the continuing union, to give the people of Scotland much improved democratic participation in making their own choice on matters which primarily are of concern to themselves. I believe that such a reform will strengthen the unity of the United Kingdom and that failure to make it could weaken that unity.
Parliament now has a historic opportunity to make a constitutional advance

which we cannot afford to let slip. After this long period of debate the Scottish people have a right to expect that Parliament should reach a firm conclusion on the Bill. That conclusion should be to give the Bill a Second Reading. I commend the Bill to the House.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Francis Pym: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House, in pursuit of its aim to achieve a substantial improvement in the government of Scotland within the United Kingdom, declines to give a Second Reading to the Scotland Bill and instead calls on Her Majesty's Government to summon a Constitutional Conference to examine defects in the Parliamentary and administrative aspects of the government of Scotland, to recommend reforms including the creation of any new institutions it may find necessary, to consider the implications of its proposals for the rest of the United Kingdom, and to report not later than July next.
I protest to the Leader of the House about the limit of time for the Second Reading debate. The Secretary of State himself complained about it and restricted the length of his speech as a result. The time limit puts Mr. Speaker and the House in an unreasonable and, in some respects, an impossible position. Proposals that have been made through the usual channels and by hon. Members have been rejected by the Lord President. His imposition of an unacceptably restricted time limit shows him in his true colours as Leader of the House. We do not like it. His motto is "Muzzle the argument and get on with the vote."
The Prime Minister and the Government have made much play of the idea that the talking should stop, that the Bill should go through and that the people of Scotland should accept it or reject it. We oppose that because it offers the Scottish people the wrong choice. The choice is whether or not they want this scheme; no other choice is on offer. The impression is given that this is the only choice and that it has been made. It is not. The holding of a referendum, however desirable, is no substitute for a proper choice nor is it a solution. The referendum does not absolve the House from considering this or other constitutional proposals in great detail.
In The Times this morning the Leader of the Liberal Party says that we must


get the Bill on the statute book so that the Scottish people can express their view in a referendum. The only view that they can express is whether they want a bad scheme or not.
The fact that there has been so much controversy about devolution is no reason for trying to force through the House one particular scheme on the ground that "Something has to be done; this is something; therefore we must do it."
I wish to persuade the House to make a drastic change in the handling of this issue. It is to that end that I moved the Opposition amendment. The case for this approach has never been argued in the House. I wish to make it and then to turn to the Bill itself. This is the double responsibility that I shall seek to fulfil this afternoon.
We are addressing our minds to a proposition of quite exceptional importance. We are dealing with the foundations and structure of the government of the United Kingdom. We are dealing with our own country and heritage, with all its infinite variety and character. We are contemplating a major change in our practice.
Opinions differ about what would be the implications and ramifications were the Bill ever to be enacted. That is a matter of judgment, but everyone is agreed that nothing would ever be the same again. It follows inescapably that before we decide to take this fateful step we should be as sure as is humanly possible, first that we are making a change that will be a positive improvement in the government of our country and of benefit to our people. We must achieve something that will be of help to the people of Scotland, otherwise it is not worth doing.
Second, we must be sure that we are not making a change that could turn out to be for the worse. Unless the House can satisfy itself on this, clearly it would be wrong to make a change, at least until we find a satisfactory way of doing it. We are all acutely aware of the controversiality of the subject, the plethora of documents and views upon it and the high degree to which it is politically charged. The debates we had on the Scotland and Wales Bill last winter showed just how deeply people feel about it.
I want to strip off the wraps this afternoon and look at the issue as objectively and dispassionately as I can, at this thing we call devolution and all the paraphernalia surrounding it.

Mr. Norman Buchan: In the process of stripping off the wraps, as the right hon. Gentleman has put it, it would help our debate if the following were to occur. The right hon. Gentleman is calling for a constitutional conference, to which, presumably the Conservative Party would make a notable contribution. It would help if he would tell us which specific proposals he would seek to bring forward at such a conference.

Mr. Pym: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient he may find that his question is dealt with.
I want to turn the spotlight on devolution and seek to reveal what we are really talking about and dealing with. I will be as frank with the House about my own party's position as I shall try to be in anything I say about the position of any other party. Whatever views right hon. and hon. Members may have about devolution in one form or another, in principle or in practice, there is no general sense of genuine support for making the changes proposed in this Bill—certainly not on the Conservative Benches. There is certainly no such support on the Government Benches. There is a feeling of deep unease in both the major political parties about this Bill. There are differences of view within the major parties and within the minor parties, too. It would be surprising if it were otherwise.
There are too many unanswered questions, too many doubts for it to be possible to say that anything approaching a broad measure of agreement exists. Furthermore, although I cannot substantiate this with hard evidence, my judgment is that there is no broad measure of agreement, either about devolution in general or about this Bill in particular, in the country at large, north, south, west or east of any border. There is a sense of confusion and anxiety. There is frustration, too, because the Government, the House of Commons, the parties, including our own, have not so far been able to come up with a solution which commands general and widespread public support. In my view this flows in large part from


the manner in which this subject has been dealt with here and by the parties.
All parties have considered this subject, and very thoroughly, too. All of them reached a series of conclusions, all of which in turn have been criticised. This is certainly true of the Conservative proposals but no less true of the proposals of anyone else. At least we have to agree on that. The widely sought-for acceptable solution has not yet been found. Maybe it does not exist. That does not mean that some scheme cannot be made to work if there is good will and a genuine desire for it. But such a scheme does not exist today and it is high time we faced that fact. We have also to face up to the politics of it. The stakes are dangerously high. The Scottish National Party is campaigning quite openly for the break-up of the United Kingdom. So long as this remains a free country it is entitled to do that. Very few people agree with it, even in Scotland. I agree with what the Secretary of State has said about that. Never mind. That is the nationalist's proposition and they can slog away at it until eventually they exhaust themselves in disappointment.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman get the position of my party right? It does not seek to break up the United Kingdom but to break up the Treaty of Union in relation to the Parliaments. If he gets that right will he then, perhaps, get the Conservatives' policy right? Is he telling the House that we are to go on having commission after commission, or is there some point at which his party says, "We have had enough commissions. Now we must get down to fundamental proposals."? When will the Conservative Party be prepared to produce a Bill that is right?

Mr. Pym: The policy of the hon. Lady and her party is undoubtedly designed to break up the United Kingdom as we know it. If the hon. Lady will await the development of my argument she may learn something. All the rest of us, apart from the nationalist parties, have the strongest desire to maintain the unity of the United Kingdom and actually to strengthen it if that is possible. I have no wish to claim any monopoly of virtue on this point from these Conservative

Benches but we do regard ourselves as pre-eminently the party of the Union. It is part of our title, as it is of our right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ulster Unionist Party.
I acknowledge, of course, that the Labour Party would claim no less interest and responsibility in maintaining the unity of our country. But this is precisely the area where the first major division between us and the Government arises. They see, or say that they see, no danger in this Bill for the unity of the United Kingdom. In Clause 1 they claim that the provisions of the Bill
do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom.
Maybe they do not do so, directly or expressly. But by implication they most certainly do. Our basic feeling, our gut instinct, is that the consequences of this Bill, if enacted, will in the course of time damage the Union and could conceivably prove fatal to its continuance.
I know that that vital matter was debated in Committee last Session and that the Government won the vote. But not only did they not win the argument; every hon. Member who spoke on that occasion spoke with unusual eloquence and force to express dissent from the view that the Bill did not affect the unity of the United Kingdom. Today, nearly a year later, that doubt and anxiety is greater, not less, inside and outside the House. Of course we shall come to debate this issue again, but in different circumstances. There is the possibility of a severe limit on time. I believe that the true feeling of this House is against such a restriction, but we shall see.
There is also the relentless, remorseless pressure from the Prime Minister and his hierarchy which is being brought to bear on Labour Back-Benchers. I believe that the intervention of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) indicated this. It is self-evident that the normal process of discussion and persuasion within the Labour Party has not caused any noticeable change of opinion. On the contrary, misgivings have increased. So, although the Prime Minister has not yet said it from the Dispatch Box, he and his lieutenants have certainly been talking in terms of escalating the issue into one of confidence in the Government—if that is possible.
Without doubt the Prime Minister has been linking the continuance and survival of his Government with getting this Bill through. I do not think that it is a secret to anyone that pressure of a powerful kind has been applied to the extent that some Labour Members seem to be taking the view that they will vote in favour of the Bill even though they do not believe in it. The significant fact is that the Government have not made this a confidence matter. They are right not to do so. Such treatment cannot be appropriate in a matter of major constitutional change for which a broad measure of agreement is highly desirable, almost essential.
It is fundamentally wrong to approach a major constitutional reform in a dramatically partisan and party political way. We have done it before, and I should have thought that we would have learned our lesson by now. In the bitterness of inter-party conflict no wise or enduring constitutional reform can be achieved. This is the basis upon which my right hon. and hon. Friends have tabled this amendment. As I said the other night, if my proposal had been accepted when it was made, months of work could and would have been done already.
The position is that all parties have come to the conclusion that, with nothing approaching agreement, let alone unanimity, some form of devolution is possible and desirable. Every party has come up with a different solution. Yet there has been no attempt between us—except in the context of the Scotland and Wales Bill in this Chamber last year—to try to find common ground. It may not exist, but I am confident that, if a genuine attempt to find it were made, there would be an infinitely greater chance of this House making a constitutional change that would be a real improvement on the Bill and in government generally.
When we consider the options, the case for the approach that we advocate seems to be overwhelming. The options lie between separation at one end of the scale—only a tiny minority of people believe that there is any merit in that, so nothing more need be said of it—and, at the other end of the scale, no change of any kind.
There is a substantial body of opinion in favour of the status quo, but there is also a widespread desire in Scotland to do things differently and to do them in Scotland. Many people in Scotland feel that the Government are too remote from them and that they cannot get through to those who make the decisions. So, I might add, do many other people in other parts of the United Kingdom. But these problems are made worse in Scotland by her separate administration and sense of difference—I agree with the Secretary of State on that point—and by her distinctive institutions.
The Conservative Party has long accepted that the status quo is not satisfactory and that a new method has to be found to meet the needs and circumstances of Scotland. In between separation and the status quo the most logical position is federation, which the Liberal Party has long advocated. I suppose that it is just imaginable that one day this country will turn itself into some kind of federation. That remains to be seen. I am certain that this country does not want to do so now or in the foreseeable future. Some people in Scotland might like it, but the English do not want it. They are not even thinking about it, because they think that it is quite unnecessary. They wish to continue as they are. Obviously it is ridiculous to contemplate imposing federation when it is not wanted, so that is not an option either.
It may be true that many English lack what is regarded as an adequate degree of understanding of and sympathy with Scotland in desiring better arrangements in Government, but it is equally true that many Scots are apt to forget that the United Kingdom is a partnership, that Scotland is a part of it, and that any partnership, if it is to work successfully, must be acceptable and agreeable to all the partners.
We are left with the question: is there a solution between the status quo and federalism that would commend itself as workable and enduring? The Government have produced a scheme which has many supporters, but also many detractors. It is a scheme which no member of the Kilbrandon Commission recommended or favoured, and which, in the opinion of the Opposition, has some


potentially fatal flaws in it—that is, fatal to the unity of the United Kingdom.
The Conservative Party has come to the conclusion that what is needed is an Assembly of a more limited kind than that put forward by the Government—an extension of Parliament in Scotland, but without a separate Executive, to carry out many of the functions of Parliament in a new way north of the border. We have been of the view that such an Assembly should be directly elected, but we recognise that the scheme that we favoured has been subjected to a substantial degree of criticism, as has the Government's scheme.
In particular, our scheme has been criticised for its proposals for handling legislation and the disagreements that would arise between the Assembly and this House. In the light of public comment and all that has happened since those proposals were first made, in a speech at St. Andrew's University on 4th October I suggested a modified version of the Douglas-Home scheme, which was designed to monitor and scrutinise the work of the large and powerful Executive that Scotland already has and to have a more limited rôle in legislation. That proposition has not yet had the scrutiny needed before it can be put to Parliament, even if the Conservatives were able to do so from the Government side of the House. In our view, the right forum for this process is the conference. That is why we have tabled the amendment in these terms.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the views of the Kilbrandon Commission. The majority of the members of the Kilbrandon Commission supported the notion of legislative devolution to Scotland, and only one member, a Conservative Member, supported the proposition of a non-legislative, non-executive Assembly of the kind that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing. How does he hope to control and monitor the activities of the Executive within an Assembly which has no power to legislate or to administer?

Mr. Pym: Contrary to what the Government say, I find that in Scotland it is not the absence of an Executive which is a public grievance, but the lack of any

public scrutiny of the Executive that already exists.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Answer the question.

Mr. Pym: That is precisely the point. In Scotland, I find to my surprise that the elaborate system of Government that we have is largely unknown. That is largely due to the fact that the scrutiny and control takes place down here and is very little understood in Scotland.

Tine Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): Perhaps I may put the question more clearly. If the Assembly that the right hon. Gentleman proposes has neither executive power nor legislative authority, how can it purport to control, monitor or do anything towards the Executive?

Mr. Pym: It will have a very much stronger voice in Scotland and will be able to make representations in a much stronger way. The monitoring of the decisions that take place in this House would be very much clearer if it were done in public in Scotland. If there were not a restriction on the time for the debate, I should be prepared to speak for an hour and a half on this matter. I made the contents of my speech public, and I have indicated how I think that it would work. The Secretary of State criticised it, and that is fair. But his own scheme is subject to a great deal of criticism. That is why I am trying to argue for a totally different approach to the subject.
Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and some Labour Members believe that the Scottish Office is perhaps the most rigorously controlled Department in Whitehall and that it is called to hook in more detail than any other Department. But that is heard and seen to such limited extent in Scotland that even the existence of the process is not widely understood. If the process were carried out in Scotland, it would go a long way to fill the gap in our parliamentary practice that so many people in Scotland feel exists.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to have the best of two mutually impossible worlds. Would it not be more honest to admit that it is impossible to have an


Assembly—especially any kind of subordinate Parliament—that is part, though only part, of a unitary State? What the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward is ridiculous.

Mr. Pym: What is important is what powers are given to any Assembly that is created and the job that it will do. Many people believe that the status quo is the most perfect form of government that it is possible to have. Others, of whom I am one, feel that that is not an acceptable proposition and that there are alternative and better ways of doing it
There have been suggestions from a number of hon. Members that another solution would be for the Scottish Grand Committee to conduct its business on a regular basis in Scotland. The difficulty is the implication that it has for this House where all hon. Members can participate in and vote upon all business. I do not think it likely that this House would agree to a restriction that would inevitably flow if some hon. Members were regularly absent in another part of the United Kingdom not on a balanced basis between the parties. Our view is that all these schemes, and no doubt others, that lie between federation and the status quo shoud be thoroughly examined and tested.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has been pursuing a nihilistic argument, setting out all sorts of possibilities and then arguing against them. But at the beginning he said that the Union was a partnership, and that any solution should be acceptable to all the parties. Therefore, if he and his party are unable or unwilling to produce a solution, what are the Scottish people to do if they find the present situation unacceptable? Should they dissolve the partnership, as is usual in these matters?

Mr. Pym: The point of the argument that I am making is that if we in this House handle this important subject in a totally different way it is my conviction that we can achieve a practical solution. I am not putting up a series of arguments and cases and then knocking them down. If we approach the matter in a different way, we can come up in a reasonably short time with a practical solution, bearing in mind all the evidence

and facts that we now have and all the thought that has already been given.
The conference which I want to see created, and which my right hon. and hon. Friends propose, would have to consider the defects in the existing government of Scotland and the reforms necessary to overcome them. It would then have to consider the effect of the reforms on the rest of the country and on the House. Given the work that has already been done and the fact that the Civil Service could prepare assessments of the various schemes, I do not envisage that it would take longer than nine months. It seems that nothing but good could come from the parties working through the arguments together.
Out of that procedure itself will emerge two or three options upon which the House could first decide, followed by the people of Scotland. The very holding of a constitutional conference would bring into focus the practical alternatives. It is my conviction that the manner in which the issue is handled is of the essence of the solution that is eventually found. The result of the way in which it has been handled so far is that we have a thoroughly unsatisfactory Bill before us. If we cannot do better than this, I do not think that we are giving a very good account of ourselves.
I remind the House what the Leader of the Liberal Party, the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), had to say about the issue on 22nd February. He said:
There has never been any consultation or any kind of cross-party talk of the kind mentioned by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire.
He went on to say:
The right way would have been to consult, consult, consult and reach agreement on sensible proposals and then go on to develop them."—[Official Report, 22nd February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 1272.]
I regret that later the right hon. Gentleman changed his mind. After the pact in June he said:
… it would have been unacceptable to go back to wide discussions?"—[Official Report, 14th June 1977, Vol. 933, c. 229.]
Not only do I think that it would have been acceptable; I think that it would have been by far the wisest way of proceeding. We on the Opposition Benches are still of that view.
I turn to the Bill, which is certainly a marginal improvement on the last one. For my part I welcome the changes as far as they go, including the decisions to divide up the Bill and make a more clear-cut division of powers by removing some of the powers of the Secretary of State. Unfortunately there is still an enormous number of defects. The Bill, or any other Bill, must be tested by a number of questions. For example, does it improve the Government of Scotland by meeting the criticisms and weaknesses that are felt to exist? Does it contain a sound method for the proposed division of powers? Does it make clear who is responsible for acting in the areas of new government and how to proceed in areas of overlapping responsibility? Does it embody an acceptable system for resolving disputes? Does it abide by the principle that if our country is to remain united, each part of it must belong to the Union on similar and compatible terms, though not necessarily identical terms?
In my opinion the answer to those questions is "No". I must remind the Government that they have never answered the questions that are contained in the White Paper entitled "Devolution within the United Kingdom: Some alternatives for discussion" that was published in June 1974. In paragraph 56 there are asked some direct questions about a scheme just such as the one that the Government have brought forward. Those questions have never been fully answered. I hope that the Minister of State will address his mind to that when he replies.
The truth is that the Bill will not bring government closer to the people. The fact is that it will bring still more government to weigh down upon the people. For that they will have to pay some millions of pounds extra a year. It will create another mini-Whitehall and Westminster. At the same time, and as the Government have acknowledged, it will reduce the effectiveness of Scotland's voice in the Cabinet.
We all know how a Minister who does not have a powerful Department behind him is less well placed, and that certainly applies to Scotland. I do not think that Scotland wants a weaker Secretary of State. That would be a heavy price to pay—namely, to exchange one set of Ministers in Westminster for a less effecttive

set in Edinburgh. I do not think that the people of Scotland realise that the new Executive will not be able to create jobs, reduce prices or do anything of that nature.
The division of powers to which the Secretary of State referred is an important aspect of the Bill. There will be many areas of dual responsibility and many types of dual responsibility, but there will not be the sort of dual responsibility where each tier of government is responsible for its own sphere.
The Scottish Executive is made subordinate to the Secretary of State. Sometimes the Executive must act on the instructions of the Secretary of State, however much it dislikes them. That does not look like a satisfactory relationship between two elected Executives, bearing in mind the powers that are set out in the Bill.
There are some powers that can be exercised by the Scottish Executive only with the consent of the Government. There are others that can be exercised by both the Secretary of State and the Scottish Executive, but there is no indication of which takes precedence in the event of a disagreement.
There are other powers relating to the SDA and other public bodies that can be exercised subject to guidelines that sometimes the Secretary of State is obliged to issue and that sometimes he can choose to issue. In other cases the Executive has to "have regard to" aspects of national pay policy, which the United Kingdom Government specifically draws to its attention.
What does "have regard to" mean? Does a Scottish Secretary have to follow the guidelines, is he to note them or can he ignore them? That is hardly a clear division of powers. Would it not have been better if the Government had chosen to follow the principles underlying an Act that has actually worked—the Government of Ireland Act which devolved a general power to legislate and administer, apart from matters specifically listed as excepted and reserved.

Mr. John Smith: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the Government of Ireland Act with at least a hint of approval. Perhaps he will clarify his position. At present he seems to be


better at criticising than in putting forward constructive ideas. What would the Conservative Party bring to his proposed consultative commission? Would it bring forward the proposal to have an Assembly without executive or legislative authority? There was legislative authority under the Government of Ireland Act. What is it that the Conservative Party would bring forward by way of proposals at the constitutional commission? Would it be anything more than the Douglas-Home proposals?

Mr. Pym: It is quite untrue to say that I have made an unconstructive speech. The first part of my speech related to a totally new way of handling the whole matter at the conference that we have in mind. I have acknowledged that the Douglas-Home scheme and the variant of it that I suggested have been subject to criticism in the same way as the Government's scheme and the schemes put forward by everybody else. But how is the issue to be thrashed out? The answer is by going through the argument on an all-party basis at a conference. That is the way to thrash through it. Having completed the constructive part of what I am saying, I am coming to make a few abbreviated comments on what I think are some of the principal criticisms to be made of the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Pym: No, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Milan: Give way.

Mr. Pym: If the right hon. Gentleman suggests that we should have more interruptions, will the Lord President give a second day for this debate? How about that for a bargain?
Having created such a complicated division of powers, one might have hoped that the Government would create a foolproof procedure for resolving the disputes that inevitably will arise but they have not. It is not Parliament or the Judicial Committee but the Secretary of State alone who may veto a Bill if he believes that it is incompatible with the European Community or other international obligations. I do not know whether I heard the right hon. Gentleman correctly. At any rate, what he said about that was not my reading of the Bill. Moreover,

if a Bill passed by the Assembly contains a provision that would or might affect a reserved matter directly or indirectly, the Secretary of State may call upon Parliament to resolve that the Bill should not proceed. That is proposed to be done either by a single vote in each House or by two votes in this House.
Even if a Bill is not ultra vires it may be overruled by a simple vote in another political body—namely Parliament. Why do it that way? The European Community obligations are all laid down in writing and there is a European Court to which such matters may be referred. Would it not be better to rely on the courts to resolve such an issue? I am sure that that would excite the Lord President, but I think that it would be the right way of dealing with such matters, thereby relying on the general power of Parliament to legislate for the whole of the United Kingdom if it strongly disapproves of an aspect of a Scottish Assembly Act.
On finance, the Government have indicated that they are prepared to devise a formula for allocating funds covering a number of areas, but the arrangements do not appear in the Bill, even though they are vital to the effective operation of the scheme.
The House should be able to consider how this would work. But is it wise to grant power to spend money without needing to be responsible to the electorate for raising at least part of it? Power to raise or lower taxes, even if only marginally, would give a devolved Administration less cause to blame Westminster every time it could not afford one of its pet projects.
There is not time for me to comment on the size of the Assembly, or the more important constitutional fact that we are moving in Scotland under this Bill to single-Chamber legislation, with all the faults that implies. Scottish Bills could be enacted in a single Chamber in Edinburgh and repealed within a few weeks by two simple votes in this House.
Leaving the detail of that aside because of the time factor, I come to the central defect which remains the implications for the House of Commons. It is simply that after the Assembly is established Members with Scottish seats will be able to vote on matters affecting England on


which neither they nor other Members of this House will be able to vote in regard to Scotland. If the Bill for Wales is enacted, there will be in this House four different categories of Members, all with different rôes and responsibilities. Indeed, in that event this House would have five different rôles—one for Scotland, one for Wales, one for Northern Ireland, one for England, and one for the United Kingdom as a whole, and all different. Only the people of England will have the whole range of Government activities examined by Members from every part of the United Kingdom.
That cannot be right. It cannot be stable and cannot endure. That was a fundamental flaw on which the original Irish Home Rule Bills foundered. What was acceptable as an anomaly for 12 Members of Parliament representing Northern Ireland in the very different and special circumstances that exist there cannot possibly he acceptable for almost one fifth of the membership of the House of Commons.
It is not sufficient just to reduce the number of Members of Parliament, nor is it satisfactory for some Members of Parliament not to vote on certain issues. Every part of the United Kingdom should be governed on the same lines. I agree with the Prime Minister who said at the end of last year:
… in our judgment, we cannot have a country which is part federal and part unitary."— [Official Report, 13th December 1976; Vol. 922, c. 985]
My right hon. Friends and I have been arguing that same point ever since yet the Government are still set on the very course the Prime Minister said he did not want.
To sum up, one can either go further than this Bill or less far. This Bill is not the solution, as I have briefly sought to show. I come back to our amendment, which is a positive and constructive proposal for breaking the impasse, for finding the best solution, and for meeting the special circumstances of Scotland. It is infinitely more important to achieve a practicable and workable reform than to rush hastily into this reform in which this House in its heart does not believe.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the next Member may I tell the House that, with brief intervals, I intend to be in the Chair throughout the debate. I shall endeavour to see that every shade of opinion, as I have listened to these matters over a long period of time, is heard. I shall do my best. I hope that hon. Members will not feel it necessary to come to the Chair to seek my advice on when they are likely to be called. I shall do my utmost to see as best I can that everybody is called.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I was deeply moved, in the speech of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), to hear him enunciate the principle that should apply to this Bill—namely, that a constitutional change of this importance should not be passed through a deeply divided House of Commons and that, if these changes are to be made, they should be made with as near full-hearted consent—the phrase was not originally mine—as can be achieved. I take it as a sign of grace in the right hon. Gentleman, who was the Chief Whip in 1972, when an even greater constitutional change than is proposed in this Bill was carried through by a majority of only eight, that he now speaks for so many in saying that that is not the atmosphere and not the way in which such changes should be made.
There is inevitably a certain repetitiveness in this debate after those which took place a year ago. We recall that the Bill of last year, containing a Scottish Bill Mark I, received a substantial majority on Second Reading, but that three months later it foundered on what was in form a procedural motion but was well understood by the House to be a verdict on the Bill itself.
What was the reason for that apparently striking change between a majority for the principle and then, after a number of sittings in Committee, the dismissal of the same principle, the dismissal of the Bill itself? It was, I believe—I think that this will be supported by a number of hon. Members who lived through those days of debate—because the House had come to see that there were deep, unresolved, and perhaps unresolvable, questions which the Government had not answered and had shown no indication


of being able to answer. That is where we are again this afternoon.
This afternoon the Secretary of State for Scotland showed himself unable to explain what would be the function of Scottish Members in this House. But behind there looms the much larger question not of the function of Scottish Members in this House in regard to Scottish affairs, but of the whole functioning of this House, when 71 of its Members come from a part of the United Kingdom where the responsibility for a great range of legislation, and consequently of policy, is borne by elected representatives elsewhere.
This is the question with which, by an iteration for which he should be praised rather than blamed, the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has identified himself. It is not the fault of the hon. Gentleman that the Government cannot answer the question. Nor does it answer his question to say that if he goes on asking it he will not be allowed to vote. Nor does it solve the question, or resolve the dilemma, to tell the House that the measure is to be whipped through on a three-line Whip, or to whisper outside the Chamber about votes on matters of confidence.
The fact that the question has never been answered is the evidence that we are in this legislation attempting to do something which runs contrary to a principle established by common sense, by experience and by endless debate over decades, namely, that it is not possible within a unitary parliamentary State to devolve widespread legislative authority to an elective Assembly in one part of that State unless the State itself is to be resolved into a federation. The question as to the position of Scottish Members after such a change as this Bill proposes, the question whether they are all to vote or none is to vote, or half of them are to vote, is not a conundrum or a trick question. It is a theorem which illustrates an underlying principle which time and again we are seeking ways to affront. I repeat that experience—painful experience, experience attended with tragic results—has shown that there is no means of circumventing the logic of the question which the hon. Member for West Lothian has so insistently posed.
I expect that the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council, if he does me the honour to notice my remarks when he replies to the debate—

Mr. Millan: My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, will be replying.

Mr. Powell: Well, if I am not to have that honour, then there will be others who will deploy the same argument. At all events, the Lord President has frequently thrown back the precedent, as he would fain claim it to be, of the government of Northern Ireland between 1922 and 1972. He understands, of course, perfectly well what is the answer to his question, but it is well that it should be understood generally and that there should be no suggestion that there is any way out, or any resolution, offered by the experience of Northern Ireland.
There is in the first place, as has often been observed, the entire difference of scale. It is one thing for 71 Members, or half that number—especially in Parliaments where majorities may be narrow—to hold the balance on great issues of policy. It is quite a different thing, during decades in which such narrow majorities have been unusual, for a very small number of Members to have been tolerated in this House and for the adherence of the majority of them to one of the great parties to have been overlooked, not without criticism, by those who belonged to other political parties.
But I will not rest upon the matter of scale, though in itself the de minimis rule applies—Northern Ireland has been de minimis in this matter over the last 50 or 60 years. But that does not go to the heart of it. Does anyone who knows anything about the story of the 1920s really imagine that Home Rule was forced upon the people of Northern Ireland, as forced it was, in order to strengthen the United Kingdom; that it was done in order to tighten the ties between that Province and Great Britain? On the contrary, it was done in order to achieve by two steps, since one step proved for the time being to be impracticable, what people already then knew was the true meaning of Home Rule—the separation of the island of Ireland from the United Kingdom. It was only the fact that the motivation of the majority in the Province was not nationalist, that their overwhelming desire was


so to use the institutions they had been given that the union would not be disturbed or threatened, which during all that period prevented the inherent consequences of devolved legislation in a unitary State, even upon that tiny scale, from becoming evident.
But, of course, it is something quite different which is proposed in the Bill, and the Government themselves recognise that it is something different. The Government recognise it in the Bill itself by the crass contradiction between Clause 1 of the Bill—with its bland assertion, which flies in the face of experience and of common sense—and Clause 81, which appeals to the popular will as expressed by referendum, not in the United Kingdom but in Scotland. Why, Mr. Speaker? If this is a constitutional reform, a reform which, as the Government assert, will leave the United Kingdom intact, but undoubtedly a constitutional reform which will put one part of the United Kingdom in an entirely new and—dare I say?—privileged position, then, if this is a United Kingdom Bill, if it is a measure which recognises and sustains the union, to whom, if not to this House, to whom beyond this House, ought that issue to be submitted? Not to the people of one part of the United Kingdom but to the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.
There is only one set of circumstances, there is only one context, in which it is right and logical to go to a part of the people of the United Kingdom and say "Do you agree with this or not?" Those are the circumstances in which such a question was put in 1973 to the people of Northern Ireland, namely, when the question is: "Do you want in or out?"
The reason why this referendum is to be limited to the people of Scotland is that the Government recognise—it is an implicit admission—that what is at stake in this Bill is the separation of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom, on which, of course, it should be the people of Scotland, and ultimately the people of Scotland only, who should have a voice.
This is a Bill by which the whole Kingdom is affected, by which every hon. Member of this House is affected, by which every constituent of every hon. Member of this House is affected. There is a list set out in Part I of Schedule 10 of the subjects on which the Scottish

Assembly will be empowered to legislate. Hon. Members might do worse than spend part of the time between now and 11 pm reading Part I of Schedule 10 of the Bill. As they do so, hon. Members representing constituencies in England should say to themselves "On all these questions it is even chances that the decisions in the future as to the law which is to apply to my constituents will be taken by the deciding vote of Scottish Members of the House of Commons, Members who in that context are irresponsible; that is, who have no corresponding responsibility upon that subject to their own constituents."
On housing, planning, health and all the rest, the law for England is to be made by an assembly in which often enough the decision will be in the hands of Members representing Scottish constituencies, by the majority within the 71. What would the Government not have given in the last three years for the difference between the minority and the majority among 71 Members of the House? Occasionally they have been eased round a difficult corner by a very much lesser margin than would be available from 71 Members.

Mr. Raison: Would not the right hon. Gentleman also stress that it is not only the law of England that will be so affected but the law of Wales and the law of Northern Ireland, and that Members representing constituencies in Wales and Northern Ireland should also bear these facts in mind?

Mr. Powell: That is certainly true. I did not mention the Welsh in this context, because we are to come to them tomorrow, and I confess that I thought I might be engaging in de minimis if I associated little Northern Ireland with England in the injustice which we shall jointly suffer, and which our constituents will jointly suffer under a constitution of this type.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I want to get quite clear from the right hon. Gentleman how he seeks to remedy the injustice. I do not want to misunderstand his amendment in any way. The amendment is
That this House declines to give the Scotland Bill a second reading so long as Northern


Ireland, an integral part of the United Kingdom, remains deprived of any devolved or local administration above the level of district councils.
If we were at some future date to be able to get, say, a devolution for Northern Ireland on the same scale as is proposed in this Bill for Scotland, would that overcome the right hon. Gentleman's other constitutional objections to the Bill?

Mr. Powell: I cannot really believe that the right hon. Gentleman has read our amendment so myopically, or that he is unaware that whereas in Scotland they have regional administration and district administration, we in Northern Ireland have democratic control over only the most minimal subjects. In our amendment we are concerned with what those in Scotland already possess, with local administration of the general policies and laws which are decided for the kingdom as a whole. Let us by all means devolve, and devolve to democratic assemblies, the administration of the laws which are made in this House and of the policies which are framed in this House. That we can do without incurring the curse which this Bill incurs. But if we go beyond that, there arises again the West Lothian question, to tell us "In that event you must resolve the Union into a federation unless you are to end up in inextricable contradictions and injustices in the House of Commons, which is the essence of our Parliamentary Union."

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman apply his mind to this question? Did not the West Lothian question—I perfectly agree with him that he was entitled to call it that—apply during that period earlier when we did have the devolved constitutional situation in Northern Ireland? Is he advocating the restoration of a position in which the West Lothian question would still be applied to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Powell: In answer to that, perhaps I might read words from the policy statement of my own party, which it arrived at three years ago in what was called the Portrush Declaration:
we do not believe that devolution itself would be appropriate. A British federal system would serve the dual purpose of maintaining

the Union and ensuring the democratic rights of the entire Ulster people.
From the beginning to the end of this question, from the days of Isaac Butt in the 1860s right the way through to the present, the theorem has been understood, by those who had the patience to understand it and were not blinded by what they thought were contemporary political necessities, that one cannot in a unitary State devolve legislative power to the representatives of a part of that State unless one resolves the State itself into a federation.
Of course, if there be found some way, after all these years, some way which has escaped 100 years of British politicians, or if there is to be a British federation, a federation of the United Kingdom, we in Northern Ireland shall claim—I use words which we reiterate—the same rights as are enjoyed by any other part of the kingdom. But our supreme interest is in the maintenance of the unity of the United Kingdom. We do not claim to be a nation; we claim to be a province of this nation. So we of all who come to this House have a vested interest, perhaps greater than any, in the preservation of the parliamentary Union. It is because we believe that the parliamentary Union would inevitably be eroded and then dissolved if such a measure as this were to be forced into operation that my hon. Friends and I, as we did last Session, will vote against this measure at every stage until it is destroyed.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I have no intention of following the argument of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) relating to Ireland. However, I accept that the West Lothian question, if that is what it is to be called, is a central weakness of the proposals before us. I am not at all sure that it is a central weakness which is soluble merely by the application of logic. I do not think that it can be answered only in these terms. It can be seen and answered only within the context of not only these proposals but the reasons for these proposals and, above all, the background of these proposals.
The truth is that if we were to examine any constitution we would find it full of flaws. I shudder to think of what the right hon. Member for Down, South would make of the British constitution if


we were to try to write it out in full legislative form and analyse it clause by clause. I can think of no constitution that would be more shot through with flaws—as the right hon. Gentleman claims this is, on one particular and obvious point. Would any of us have devised a British constitution in which we would have failed to take action on the sovereignty of the elected Parliament and then said "By the way, we shall have a chamber at the end of the corridor which can delay and overturn these measures"? What nonsense. What denunciations we would have received from the right hon. Member for Down, South.
Therefore, we have to look at this in the perspective of the weakness of all constitutions. We have to say, given a constitution which will have flaws, can that constitution operate because the will of the people is such that it should operate? One thing that we have to devise here is precisely the kind of solution which will command the support of the general will behind it. That is the only reason that this place works, and it is the only reason that the proposed Assembly and the new structures, both of this place and in the Assembly, will work—if there is the general will to make it work.
It is no use saying that Northern Ireland was exceptional because of the de minimis argument. I accept this, but what this is saying is that there was a flaw in the situation which was tolerated and which worked. It worked for half a century, however badly, because it was a de minimis situation. That, at least, was deserting logic. That was at least dealing with the practicalities of the situation—that there was a general acceptance that it should work for a period until a flaw developed. If I were sure that the Assembly proposals would work comfortably for half a century, during that process I think that we could find the necessary change and, above all, the modus vivendi which would allow it to operate.
There was a deep political reason—not the logical reason—for its failing in Northern Ireland. It was a political reason. It was the presence of partition. It was that which caused the breakdown in Northern Ireland, and not the illogicality of the constitution.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member is entirely right in saying that, apart from the de minimis argument, it worked only because of the determination of those concerned, under constant threat as they were, not to use the powers which they had in any fashion which would differentiate them from the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member has the point.

Mr. Buchan: That implies that there was a particular attitude, not linked to the constitution, which made it prevail. I am suggesting that it is possible to develop around this the kind of attitude—a different attitude—which will allow this to prevail, and there is no reason to think that that cannot happen.
I accept what the right hon. Member for Down, South says and what the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has said about there being a weakness in Clause 1, which provides that the provisions
do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom.
I hope that they are right in their assertions. But it is by no means to be taken for granted, and it cannot be legislated for, that the Bill will
not affect the unity of the United Kingdom.
We all know that it is because of the dangers facing the unity of the United Kingdom that this measure has been brought in, at any rate at this particular time. But we cannot then follow that argument into the central weakness that the right hon. Gentleman has been developing on the basis of the problem facing Scottish Members here and particularly to argue it on the basis of numbers. He said that this was not the main point with which he was concerned, but it was an important point of his argument when he showed the difference between that and the 12 Members from Northern Ireland—the de minimis argument.
The truth is that the 71 Scottish Members here will not be acting as a block in any sense but will be representing political attitudes. Were they here representing a block in the kind of majority that the right hon. Gentleman wanted my right hon. Friend to get over the last two or three years—a built-in majority of 71—that would be a different proposition. But that is not the proposition. In


no sense would they be behaving like a block.
If we are to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom—if we in Scotland are to express our nationhood in this particular way and at the same time recognise that we are members of either another nation or, at any rate, another state of the United Kingdom—it follows that the will behind making this operate must be of such a kind that the 71 Members will not develop as a block in this particular way.
The background of Ireland was that the Irish representation, in fighting for what happened in Ireland, behaved like a block. This is a very different situation. The right hon. Member for Down, South made an effective speech and, as always, it was sombre. I accept that tone. Any man who irresponsibly examines this Bill and irresponsibly supports or rejects it is a fool. There are dangers in what we are doing.
The argument has always been whether there are fewer dangers. I change my views from Monday to Tuesday and from Tuesday to Wednesday, but I am clear about one thing: if the matter is to be resolved in the way that hon. Members opposite have proposed, namely, a rejection of the concepts of the Bill, such a rejection must not take place in this House. I believe that the question has passed from this House and that it must be decided by the popular will in Scotland.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the introduction of a referendum in itself could cause the fragmentation of the unity of the United Kingdom and that such a referendum should be posed to the whole of the general will—in other words, to the whole of the United Kingdom. Again we come back to the point that we are dealing with this matter against a political background and against a background of attitudes. The logic of the right hon. Member for Down, South breaks down at this point.
It is not acceptable that a decision to be made in Scotland should be subject in any sense to a veto by the people of England. I accept totally and absolutely the right of the people of England to exercise their vote in this referendum. But I think it would be wrong and foolish

for them so to exercise it, even though they have the right to do so. We have the right to do many things in this world, but for the greater good of the United Kingdom I believe that the people of England should not seek to exercise that right. I believe this problem has passed into the hands of the people of Scotland and it is they who must make the decision. Any other decision will be a false and, therefore, unacceptable decision.
It is therefore right, first, to have a referendum and, second, that the people of Scotland should decide. The weakness in the referendum proposals is precisely because the Government have nodded vigorously when I talked about the general will and the political situation which prevails. That is what we must consider. In other words, there is no overwhelming demand for devolution in Scotland which must be answered by a referendum. On the contrary, there has been the development of a particularly nasty form of chauvinism in Scotland which has greater or less support.
That is the question which must be answered, because otherwise the popular will cannot be exercised. We cannot form an Assembly, with the functions that undoubtedly will be created and the conflicts that undoubtedly will arise between the Assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament, whether on matters of finance or anything else, if it is against a background in which any such conflict, disagreement or defeat is resolved by an accidental slip into separation.
That remains the prevailing argument. In other words, the general will, if it is to be carried for an Assembly, must be carried for only the Assembly. We must also face up to the question that this general will must express itself as seeking the Assembly to remain precisely because it has rejected the alternative—the separation of Scotland. Therefore, we are pushed inexorably into the argument for the second question in a referendum. The right hon. Member for Down, South referred to this in relation to the Home Rule situation in Northern Ireland. That is precisely the problem here. We must have an Assembly starting in the knowledge that, at any rate for the time being—there are no Medes and Persians even north of the border—the Assembly will be given the opportunity to work without


fear of separation. This is the necessity for the second question. Without it, I believe that nothing will be solved. Furthermore, I believe that this is expected in Scotland.
I believe there is no great demand for devolution in Scotland. People who express the great heart of the mystery by saying "I was in Scotland for X weeks or X days. I spoke to X number of people and none of them raised the subject of devolution. They raised the question of jobs and the problems of the economy." are absolutely right. There is no crying demand for devolution. I accept that completely. But my nose tells me that it is still there, although my nose may be wrong.
The last time I spoke on this matter, on 22nd February, I said that if the Bill was defeated there would be a strong reaction in Scotland. I was wrong. There was no march or demonstration and not one window was broken in St. Andrew's House. Even the SNP knew that it could not mount a demonstration. I could therefore be wrong on this occasion, but I still think that the right thing to do is to pass the Bill and to put the proposition to the Scottish people to decide.

Mr. Raison: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how many letters on devolution he has received, even in the last few days?

Mr. Buchan: I have had none. I honestly confess that. I am quite straightforward about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) wrote a letter last week to the Lord President making precisely this point. He will be making his own case, but I think that he agrees with me that whether or not one accepts devolution it is right that it should be settled in Scotland and not defeated in this House.
The main point I wish to put to my right hon. Friends in the Government is the necessity for the second question. I wish to raise one or two points, particularly since the, major Opposition party takes it upon itself, the second time around, to seek to defeat the Bill on the spurious argument of a constitutional conference. The Opposition should at least enlighten the House about what they propose to put in its place. It was left to the right hon. Member for Down, South to spell out the central flaw.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire did not offer any suggestions about what should happen. He will recall that after the failure of the last Bill there were inter-party talks. We are entitled to know what the Conservative Party proposed in those talks. This matter not only affects the Conservative Front Bench; it affects its rank-and-file Members. The Conservative Party could be right in what it proposed, but it would be valuable to know whether it proposed anything. It would be valuable to know whether the move for a constitutional conference was merely a means of preventing devolution from happening, because I have lost count of the number of alternatives that have been brought forward.
The latest proposal put forward by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire is that there should be some means of monitoring the rôle of the Scottish Office. We have, with respect, a dozen bodies in Scotland busily doing that, from the Scottish Executive of the Labour Party itself to the STUC and other bodies. This is no solution to a major constitutional problem. If the Opposition intend to vote against the Bill, I hope that before the night is out they will at least give us the alternative that we should seek.
With those few remarks, and because I know that a great many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak—to say nothing of my intense dislike of "could kail re-het" and the fact that I am not particularly good at action replays—I hope that right hon. and hon. Members who are in doubt about supporting the Bill will at least accept that the right way of dealing with it, if they wish to oppose it, is by passing the Bill so that the opportunity may be given to the people of Scotland to vote either for it or against it. I hope, too, that they will support me and my hon. Friends who seek the inclusion of the second question because, without the second question, I fear greatly for the consequence—even of having a referendum on the single question. My loyalties will be strained greatly when it comes to such a referendum if we do not have the second question which alone can settle the main problem.

6.31 p.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I know that the hon. Member


for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) will forgive me if I do not take up any of his arguments. No doubt we shall have other opportunities to pursue them at closer quarters.
I intend to speak briefly, since the curtailment of debate is such that many right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the United Kingdom and all equally affected by the Bill will not have an opportunity to express their views.
The many hours of debate on the previous Bill—a Bill so similar to this one—simply served to show the defects and deficiencies which are before us again. The Secretary of State made a point about the improvements which had been made to the Bill, but I suggest that such alterations as have been made do not alter the central fact, which is the impossibility of devolving as suggested while maintaining the unity of the United Kingdom. That was demonstrated clearly in our debates on the previous Bill, and it is not altered by any so-called improvements in the present Bill.
In our previous debates, the argument was won on every count when we came to discuss the clauses. It is important to remember that the remaining clauses were never even brought before the House. Yet now we have the return of almost the same Bill, tragic in its likelihood of paving the way to the break-up of the United Kingdom. It holds within it no cure for unemployment and no recipe for the stability of the United Kingdom. It seeks to divide the authority of this sovereign Parliament in a way which makes conflict between Westminster and Edinburgh inevitable. It creates the unacceptable situation in which Scottish Members at Westminster can vote on education, housing and other devolved matters in England but not in regard to these same matters in their own constituencies. Questions have been put to the Secretary of State today on these very points. So far, he has made no reply.
The Bill also leaves unresolved the number of Scottish Members who should come to Westminster. It must be clear that the overweight of present numbers left with limited functions and full voting power would create immediate dissension. That again has been made clear by a number of right hon. and hon. Members

today during the speech of the Secretary of State.
Devolution in Scotland is a dead subject. One has only to talk to the first 20 or 200 people whom one meets. It is unlikely that two or 20 will mention it. They will talk of unemployment, of prices, of inflation and of the essential matters that touch the lives of many families.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there is widespread support for this change, it is wise to recall—it has not been mentioned so far today—that every professional and business body is against the proposals in the Bill, and they are the very people to whom the Government are looking to create the new jobs which are the basic essential for the whole of the United Kingdom. This Bill will add no hope in that direction.
If we are to divide off the five million people of Scotland, there is a case for Merseyside, for the North-East and for the South-West.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: What for?

Miss Harvie Anderson: For the United Kingdom, about which the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) cares so little. In their own way, these places have special problems and distinctive histories—just as distinctive as the Scottish people and quite as diverse. People there have similar hopes and fears. Yet, at the time of the proposed referendum—though I do not want to digress on this too far—they will not be allowed their say.
We have all this before us, with the terrible consequences plain to see for all who are prepared to look closely at the history of Scotland, at the history of our people and at the problems, both those well known and, perhaps more importantly, those lying only just beneath the surface. It may be that those of us in the central belt of Scotland have a greater responsibility than others to make those problems lying just beneath the surface clear to one another, if not to make them public, as I sometimes think they should be.
I hope that this measure, which I believe to be striking at the roots of the constitution, will be regarded for what it is. In my view, it is put forward in the hope that it will save seats—seats which have been put at risk by bad government in recent years.
This measure is opportunist, divisive and greedy. But for the existence of oil, it would never have been brought forward. Yet those nearest to the oil have the wisdom to see already the dangers of basing the future on a temporary benefit.
The tragedy is that what we do today will have its full effect upon succeeding generations. We are one nation. We divide at peril to ourselves and to the delight only of our enemies. The Government seek to hand over the ways but not the means. The cost to Scotland will be an overwhelming bureaucracy—expensive and crushing. We would be the most over-governed and the most expensively over-governed country in the world. In my view, the problems inherent in the Bill would result in the break-up of the United Kingdom.
It is for those reasons that I and so many right hon. and hon. Members will vote against the Bill.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I do not propose to speak for very long. However, having listened to the Cassandra-like speech made by the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson), following, as it did, other speeches from the Opposition Benches, I feel that I have to say a word or two.
There has been a great deal of gloom and doom from the Opposition, and I think that it stems from ignorance. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said that we were rushing headlong into this. The right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East said that it all started with oil. Can she tell me why, three years before oil was discovered, we had the great declaration of Perth from her leader at that time, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), and the setting up by the Tory Party in Scotland of its own constitutional commission with distinguished people from Australia and Canada? It even had a Scottish judge on it before he was reminded what his judicial impartiality really meant and that he should not serve on Tory committees. All that started with the right hon. Lady's own party.
What we have had over the past two years has been a running away, a retreat from Perth. However, Tory election addresses still have it. I collect them.

Mr. Galbraith: Clearly the right hon. Gentleman has not read mine.

Mr. Ross: I am referring to right hon. and hon. Members who decorate the Opposition Front Bench. They talk of a legislative Assembly for Scotland. I have in mind the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), who is my own Member of Parliament, and I have in mind the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). They all have a past on this matter. Indeed, we had dramatic evidence from the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) that the hon. Member for Cathcart was at one time even toying with the idea of becoming a member of the Scottish National Party.
To suggest that the Government are rushing headlong into this matter is nonsense. We were told that the wraps were going to be taken off Conservative policy today. But when the wraps were taken off, we found nothing but political nakedness—and that after 10 years of Tory cogitating on the subject.

Mr. Galbraith: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that nakedness is better than hypocrisy?

Mr. Ross: It depends on who is naked. Even hypocrisy can be naked. But I would not accuse the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) of anything other than consistency in this issue—his head has been in the political sands for years and years.
The right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East says that no one in Scotland wants this Bill. Let this Bill be turned down by an English majority in the House and she will discover what the people of Scotland think. The last Bill remained alive and the Government said that they would bring it back. Now we have the new version. I warn English Members against playing politics with this issue.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that as Secretary of State for Scotland his record was of being wrong about everything? Again, on the Second Reading of the Scotland and Wales Bill in the last Session, the Minister of State responsible for devolution predicted Ulster-type violence in Scotland if we did not get the Second Reading, and we did not get it.

Mr. Ross: We did get the Second Reading of that Bill. The hon. Member for Cathcart is wrong again. We got it with a comfortable majority. I have always said that he is wrong, and continually wrong, and I am right in saying it again.
The fact is that there has been a long history of this process. A Bill to create a Secretary of State for Scotland was turned down 95 years ago. Then there were second thoughts, and a responsible Minister was appointed in 1885. We then got the same kind of speech as has been made today by the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West. The Church of Scotland opposed it. The Educational Institute of Scotland opposed it as detrimental to Scottish education. But we have had the development of government in Scotland from that time. In 1926, the Secretary for Scotland was elevated to the rank of Secretary of State, and his place in the Cabinet was assured. In 1939, the offices which were in London were transferred to Scotland.

Mr. Douglas Crawford: rose—

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman was a Tory all that time—indeed, an industrial adviser to the Tory Party.
There has been a logical development of a build-up to devolution for Scotland through executive devolution. It has happened under both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. We have our Secretary of State. People talk of asking Questions of him. But one can only ask him Questions on one day in a certain sequence, and one is limited in the number of Questions one can ask. He answers for about seven or eight different Departments.
Again, one of the dangers in a narrow majority is that the right hon. Gentleman has to be in this House so much. But there are nearly 7,000 civil servants in Scotland whom he is supposed to control, so that when this kind of executive devolution goes too far the danger is of government not only by bureaucracy but, it may well be, by a second-class bureaucracy without proper ministerial supervision.
We come now to the next logical step—and it is logical; we are not rushing into it headlong. After the Tory constitutional committee, the Government set up

the Kilbrandon Commission. It investigated and reported. For years the parties have discussed its findings between themselves. For two years as Secretary of State, I was interviewing and meeting people in Scotland from all sorts or organisations, seeking their comments about the Kilbrandon Report. There has been nothing headlong about the process, and the consultation has been open.
If the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire did not participate in all this, it was his fault. He declined an invitation. I know that I met various hon. Members, because we have been concerned about this for so long. If people claim that because they did not get a letter about it it is not important, they are wrong.
Of course this Bill will not solve all the problems—that has never been claimed for it. But it will lead to better and closer government, and to my mind this House will turn the Bill down at its peril. To accede to the suggestion for some constitutional conference from which we must have a reply by July would be to enable the Tory Party to avoid a vote tonight because it has no policy.

Mr. Galbraith: When did the right hon. Gentleman change his mind about the merits of this matter?

Mr. Ross: I did not change my mind. One of the troubles about people who make points like that is that they know nothing of the history of this matter in the Labour Party in Scotland. I pointed out in my last speech on the issue that the Labour Party has been dealing with this matter since before 1945. It held a special conference which stated that a decision should be delayed until after a Speaker's Conference. But instead of a Speaker's Conference we had a constitutional commission, and after that commission reported a decision was taken by the Scottish Labour Party conference. So there has been a clear development. At the same time, since 1945, there has been the build-up of powers of the Secretary of State, and the next logical step is legislative devolution.
What we are faced with is the question whether we are to leave thing alone and do nothing. I say we do that at our peril. We have a Parliament in which there are only 71 Scottish Members, who usually act not as Scottish Members but as part of more than 630 Members who


make the decisions. The more that process goes on, the more we give the argument to those who favour separation. I am utterly opposed to separation and will fight it with every breath I have, but this Bill is the right step to take at this time.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I welcome the opportunity to be speaking more or less in agreement with the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), although perhaps some of our reasons differ. Like him, I believe that we have before us a Bill for Scottish self-government which will work. Like the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson), I do not think that it represents any kind of final settlement. In politics there is no such thing. But I hold the view that it can provide a stable basis upon which an effective and responsible Parliament can be worked out, evolved and constructed in Scotland which, by the practice of government—which itself is important—can evolve a more durable system, and, equally, work out more durable relationships with England—and within England, for that matter.
Last Friday I heard the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)—already much quoted, though he has temporarily left the Chamber—say that the difference between the Bills today and tomorrow and the joint Bill which preceded them was no more than a rearrangement of seats in a railway carriage. He did not go so far as to say that the engine driver was a raving lunatic, but I think that that implication also was clear in his remarks.
I think it right, therefore, briefly to "rake a little cauld kale" if only a little—with respect to the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan)—by listing the reasons why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I regard these proposals as sufficiently acceptable for us to support the guillotine on them, although we did not do so on the previous occasion, though we voted for the Second Reading. I say that despite the fact the Bill does not meet many of our long-standing arguments and cannot be regarded as federal.
For the record, then, I shall quote a short passage from a letter which I wrote

to the Scotsman on 18th February this year:
The problem is
—and the problem remains, in fact—
should one make it possible for the acceleration of legislation",
which some would say is inadequate, or should one not?
The Liberal view is simple. We want self-government for Scotland and we want it to be meaningful, acceptable and workable. And for us this means a fair electoral system and taxation and economic powers—
I am referring to that deliberately, because there lies the lack, and I shall explain what I mean. In other words, we want
A federal solution. That is what we want, but we should be very willing—and have always said so—to enter discussions with a view to reaching some compromise. Over two years ago. I suggested a constitutional conference to Harold Wilson ….
—a matter overlooked, perhaps, by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym)—
I think that it would be excellent for the Government to be defeated on the guillotine. Obviously, the problem would not go away. They must be forced genuinely to consult, genuinely to talk, genuinely to find a fair solution.
That, I believe, they have done. I think that the Government have talked and have consulted genuinely, and in my judgment the result is reasonably fair. As for the Government's record, I pay tribute to the open-minded and reasonable way in which the Minister of State at the Privy Council Office, who is now present, approached these discussions, which I had responsibility on behalf of the Liberal Party for having with him. Hon. Members on the Back Benches who have more direct access to him through their membership of the same party will know that he is not an easy man with whom to negotiate, but he is a fair man, and I wish that to be stated.
At the same time, we have the steadily hardening position of the official Opposition to any generally acceptable form of devolution, and this, to our mind in the Liberal Party, has made the concept of a constitutional conference, which we were advocating three years ago, less and less realistic. I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, as other hon. Members did I am sure. He


rejected the idea when it was first proposed three years ago, and one remembers—this was touched on, I think, by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock—how the Conservatives treated the Kilbrandon Commission. Their way of treating it was to set up a commission of their own. That was the reaction of those who are so interested and anxious to achieve a consensus on this matter.
The variety of minimal solutions which we have heard of since clearly shows that there was nothing productive there. I see the Lord President of the Council nodding his head. If I recall aright, he had discussions with the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, but I do not think that they particularly galvanised the Lord President. In my view, therefore, it is nonsense for the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire to say that what is now proposed is all terrible and there has been no time for discussion. The Conservatives have had a decade and more to discuss it.
Why is the present Bill better? First, the financial arrangements are better in two respects. There is the Government's willingness to consider sympathetically—that is in the White Paper—direct taxation powers if costs are met. As the House will recall, we proposed that income tax powers be given to the Assembly. The Government demonstrated clearly that that would cost about £8 million directly if it were possible to vary the tax, which is the whole point of it anyway, and about £8 million indirectly, and that it would result in the necessary employment of about two 2,000 civil servants, who, ironically, would be placed in England. I do not think that we in the Liberal Party could argue for cutting down bureaucracy and, on the other hand, argue for a solution of that kind.
Second, there is the Government's declared intention to explore a fixed formula for a block grant over a number of years—I think that this will get away from the annual haggle which has been often criticised, and was criticised on the last Bill—linked to an independent advisory body.
Next, there is the reduction of the Government's powers of override and a clear restriction to non-devolved areas. Further,

there is the establishment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as what one might call a quasi-constitutional court. It will be something of that sort. It is not the full-fledged arrangement which we argued for, but I think that it is a step in the direction we want, a step in the direction of introducing a federal element.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I apologise for interrupting as the hon. Gentleman is listing the advantages of the Bill, but, before he strays too far from matters of finance, will he say where in the Bill these improvements are covered? Is he not simply relying on the White Paper, which is no more than an indication of what the Government might be able to do but which is definitely not provided for in the legislation before the House?

Mr. Johnston: That is self-evident. I am well aware of it. I did not think it necessary to point out that these matters are not in the Bill. They could not be in the Bill anyway. The fact is that on both those matters, for instance, the Government persuaded us—they did some persuading too—that it was right and proper that the Assembly itself should have a clear opportunity to express a view as to whether it was prepared to take on the cost involved of differential finance raising powers and whether it thought it right that the block grant should be on a fixed formula over a number of years instead of annually, as hitherto. I see nothing wrong in that.
Finally, there is the range of matters mentioned by the Secretary of State—the question of powers over teachers' salaries, rents and rates, the question of the Parliamentary Commissioner, the method of work of the Assembly and the like. In my opinion, that is all summed up by saying that the hallmark of the Bill represents more genuine independence of action than previously existed.

Mr. Britton: On the question of taxation, is not the truth that the hon. Gentleman tried to persuade the Government to introduce taxation powers into the Bill—if they were to exist, they could perfectly well come in this Bill—but he failed to persuade them? They, he says, persuaded him, and he is now left with the hope that some future body or


Assembly will succeed where he has failed in persuading the Government. That hardly seems particularly dramatic or radical.

Mr. Johnston: I think that it is the first time that any Government have said that they would favourably consider direct tax-raising powers for a Scottish Parliament. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that his record of achievement in these matters is outstanding.
The Liberals have recognised and stated that, given the state of Scottish opinion, the ultimate legislation will represent a compromise, which is what one has been engaged upon. There are, therefore, two matters which I should quickly mention on which we consider that changes should have been made but on which we did not succeed in persuading the Government during our negotiations. The first relates to economic powers and the guidelines which, as the Secretary of State said today, remain with the Secretary of State in regard to the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board, as well as in regard to the Welsh Development Agency, for that matter.
The idea that the whole balance of the United Kingdom economy would be toppled if one gave to the HIDB, with its annual budget of £8 million, the right to determine its own guidelines in dispensing grants, loans and the rest is absolute rubbish. The same is true in the case of the Scottish Development Agency, though there the sum of money is much larger, about £400 million. The real controlling factor is the total budget, because then one has the normal interplay of politics, the pressures from different areas and so on. I think that that is a change which could well have been made.

Mr. Raison: rose—

Mr. Johnston: I am reluctant to give way since there are so many hon. Members wishing to speak.

Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman is a Member of the Liberal Party which, as I understand it, is mad keen on incomes policy. One of the features of the arrangement presented in the Bill is that the Scottish Assembly would be able to pay teachers or its other public servants—large numbers of them—a great

deal more than the going rate. All it has to do is to pay regard to Government policy. It would not have to do anything about it. Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a serious problem here in that the Scottish Assembly would be free to do whatever it liked with incomes policy, and would this not have major effects on the Government in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Johnston: That is a valid point, and one that we have often discussed. Incomes policy is a United Kingdom responsibility, and I have no doubt that the Westminster Parliament would, of necessity, have to discuss the matter with the Scottish Assembly during the period of any such statutory policy. If there is no statutory policy, the only power that exists is that of persuasion. That is to a large degree the present position of the Government, because they have a voluntary incomes policy, the implementation of which depends upon persuasion.
I was expecting the hon. Gentleman to raise the argument that a Scottish Parliament would suddenly double teachers' salaries. That argument is produced by those who live in cloud-cuckooland. The Assembly would not do that. It would not be political reality to adopt such a policy.
The idea that the Assembly would distort the United Kingdom economy is equally nonsense. Regional development is a distortion of the free market anyway, and what one has to ensure is that it is done in a fair way. In this context I ask North of England Members—some of whom I understand are thinking of voting against the Bill on the ground of its being an economic threat to their area—to realise that that is not the case. That is not the intention of the Bill in any way.
I now come to the question of the voting system. It makes me furious to hear the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) going on about democracy. He does not appear to give tuppence for the gross distortion under the existing system. I spoke at length on this matter on the occasion when the previous Bill was debated, and I shall do no more than make a quick point rather than repeat what I said then, particularly as the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk


and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing), has come into the Chamber.
I said then:
It is all very well for the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to shake his head, but if the system of government proposing two members per constituency is followed through there will be a possibility of a large overall majority for a party that may receive only one-third of the votes. In Scotland at present the Labour Party has 36 per cent. of the votes and takes 57 per cent. of the seats. That is not fair, and cannot be justified.
In reply, the hon. Gentleman said that the House should not worry because there was a Committee system that would protect minorities. He added:
While this is something that has been widely welcomed throughout Scotland, little has been said about it. With that system there is an absolute guarantee that whoever is in the minority, and no matter for how long they are in the minority, they will still be involved and have some say in the formation of legislation before it reaches the Assembly."—[Official Report, 14th January 1976; Vol. 903, cc. 493–4.]
This is now no longer the case. The reason for what, which I am not criticising, is to give more power to an independence of action within the Assembly, but it has the effect that the Government must think again about the whole question of the voting system.
There are many other matters to which I should like to refer, but it would be unfair of me to take up too much time, and I shall therefore conclude by making two points. It would be a stupid person who would deny that the establishment of the Assembly will produce many problems, but, however serious the problems may be, they will not be as serious as those that would arise if no Assembly were established.
The great majority of Scots want self-government without separation from the United Kingdom, but if they are denied any change the frustration will be enormous. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock was right when he spoke about the history of the matter. What Conservative Members should realise is that this is not a new issue. It was in 1950 that the National Covenant was signed by more than 2 million people. The feeling was ignored by the major parties until it was espoused by the one-issue party, the SNP, and translated into votes that threatened the establishment

of the two major parties. All the present travail, outrage and fear at the prospect of the break-up of the Union could have been averted by the United Kingdom responding earlier to those feelings. The Ides of March were well foreshadowed.
The question of representation in this House is a matter of genuine concern among English Members. In the event of devolution, English Members will be wholly entitled to object fiercely to Scottish Members, by their votes, helping to carry through the House matters dealing with English education, housing, health, and so on, but even if a federal proposal had been put forward that overlap would not have been avoided, as the right hon. Member for Down, South said.
Given that that situation exists, it is imperative that clear conventions are involved—and much of this House operates on conventions—by which Scottish Members do not vote on such matters. I do not regard that sort of thing as impossible. It is a choice of alternatives. Either one does that, which I agree is not a marvellous idea, or one does the other thing, which is less acceptable.

Mr. George Cunningham: If there were a convention that Scottish Members did not vote on matters applying only to England, how would such a convention apply to deciding which party should form the Government at Westminster after a General Election if one party had a majority of British Members, and another had a majority of non-Scottish Members?

Mr. Johnston: This is a United Kingdom matter, and if the hon. Gentleman says that there will be complications I shall have to agree with him, but I do not think that those who advocate devolution and say that something must be done about it can pretend that the problem does not exist and try to evade it.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman says that the issue cannot be evaded, but if he allows the Bill to go on to the statute book he will be evading the issue.

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Gentleman is one of those who have recently, almost by a miracle, it seems, discovered federalism as the only possible solution.


I said earlier—perhaps the hon. Gentleman was dozing when I said it—that if this were a federal Bill, with clearly separated functions, this problem would not arise. The only way in which a solution can be produced is through the conventions of the House, rather than through legislation, because by the construction of the Bill, we are debarred from producing a solution by means of legislation.
I regard the passage of the Bill in its present form—or at least in a similar form—as essential. It provides a better begininng than the previous Bill did for the reform of Government in Scotland. Because this measure does not contain everything that I want, that is no reason for my opposing it. It is all very well for Conservative Members to laugh. Until recently they never mentioned federalism, and now they say that we cannot have what the Government propose, because it is not federalism. I believe that we shall end up with federalism. If we block the dynamic of change, we shall have separatism. I do not believe that this Bill will damage the unity of the United Kingdom. The status quo is the thing that has damaged the unity of the United Kingdom.
I speak both as a Liberal and as one who, on 30th November 1966, introduced the first Bill for Scottish self-government since the war. I wish the Bill before us today a fair passage.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: My party regards the Bill as the first step along the road to self-government, and we are sure that the Scottish people will regard it as the first step towards obtaining national justice for Scotland.
For English members, the Union of 1707 was a fairly minor event. In a sense, it was the incorporation of Scotland within their body politic. They did not change their place of meeting. They did not change their procedure. Scotland was merely swallowed up. It did not affect the governing of England. For that reason, it was broadly accepted within England, although it is interesting to remark that there was opposition at Westminister at that time from high Tories who did not want Scotland to be brought into a union with England.
We are now beginning to see high Tories from both the Left and the Right who are opposed to any change in the constitutional structure for Scotland. But for Scotland, the incorporation into union, the disappearance of a Scottish Parliament, was a major event which affected the life-style and the method of government of a nation of some 800 years. Almost as soon as the Act was passed, the Union's safeguards were being breached by the House, so much so that within about five years the Union was almost repealed within the House of Lords—it came within four votes. Then and subsequently some who favoured repeal were amongst those who had been most active in pushing it through 1706 and 1707.
We must also remember the declaration that was made in the House, that it was the Parliament of England continuing rather than a new body which had been created. This has stuck in the gullets of Scots' lawyers and the Scottish people ever since.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) was right when he said that the Union was a partnership. Of course the Union may have started as a partnership, but we in Scotland certainly over the past 70 years, have found that far from Scotland being a partner it has increasingly been regarded as a region or a province. It is not acceptable in Scotland to be considered to be a province when it is a nation. What may be acceptable to Northern Ireland Members cannot be stood by ourselves. It must be remembered that the Union was established between two sovereign countries and that there still is in Scotland a strong feeling of nationhood which has given rise to objections to the manner in which we have been governed.
It is no accident that the Bill has reached the Floor of the House of Commons, even if it is for the second time. It has been part of a build-up over the past 80 years. The first Home Rule motion was introduced in 1809. Subsequently there was a whole series of similar attempts by parliamentarians from Scotland to restructure the constitutional position, to give Scotland a better position within the United Kingdom.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Scottish Parliament, which he is recalling with such affection, was elected by barely 2,000 people throughout Scotland, that until 20 years before the Act of Union it met for only two days a year to appoint the Lords of the Articles and go away, and that one of its last pieces of legislation was an Act carrying through the serfdom of the salt panners? Does the hon. Gentleman think that that institution had such a vast effect on the life-style of the Scottish people?

Mr. Wilson: It is typical of the hon. Gentleman to try to get a laugh at Scotland's expense. It is part of his whole wish to sneer at his own country. He should be ashamed of himself. He is distorting the history of Scotland, because he well knows that as a result of the Union of the Crowns the Scottish Parliament was under the control of the Crown—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. The Chair would like to hear the argument.

Mr. Wilson: Secondly, the hon. Gentleman has taken one bad example of what the Scottish Parliament did. I could quote many other good examples of reforming legislation undertaken by that Parliament—such as providing legal aid are setting down the institution of an education system in Scotland. There are many other examples that the hon. Gentleman would do well to consider.
The last point that the hon. Gentleman made in objection was that the Scottish Parliament was undemocratic. For goodness sake, what was this institution at that time? It was not until the Reform Bill of 1832 that some changes were made towards a development in democracy. From whichever side of the border we are, we must realise that in those days parliamentary institutions were oligarchic and not democratic. I am sure that the Scottish Parliament would have followed the process of democratisation in the same way as the United Kingdom Parliament has done, and probably achieved democratisation much faster.
We in Scotland object to the smug assumption that this House is the norm of good government and economic management. If there were any arguments in favour of that, they have been demolished

by the reduction in the standards of the Scottish people over the years. What the Scottish people want is a governmental organisation, backed by a democratic Parliament with full powers to control the Scottish economy. This is where the Bill is defective, but, as I have indicated, this is a first step and is no final constitutional settlement. It is what the Scottish people want that will be decided at the end of the day.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman said that as a first step he wants to secure an improvement in the economic position of the Scottish people. In what way will this Bill help to bring that about?

Mr. Wilson: The Bill will help by improving the quality of government, by bringing the Scottish Office, which I do not rank as one of the most efficient of the bureaucratic offices in the United Kingdom, under democratic management. It will provide, through an effective committee structure better ways of monitoring the administration of the country. Secondly, it will bring pressure to bear through the Executive structure for the proper negotiation of Scotland's share in the oil revenues and the resources of Scotland.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Ah.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman should remember that by adopting that attitude he is prepared to deprive his own people and his own constituents of a fair share of what is theirs. Thirdly, the Scottish Assembly will naturally accrue powers to itself as and when the Scottish people themselves indicate the speed at which they wish to go. If the hon. Gentleman is a democrat, I do not think he will consider it wrong that that should happen.
It is not difficult for us in the Scottish National Party to give the Bill some support. I suspect that it is difficult, however, for the Unionists to do so. They have a great difficulty. They must decide whether the existing structure of administration is healthy and good. They must decide, if they are to reform it to meet the demands of the Scottish people, how to go about it. They may have to decide whether to go for decentralisation. Do they want decentralisation or further centralisation, which was the fashionable


theory for so long? Do they want fully to integrate Scotland into England so that the Scottish legal system is fully integrated and the Scottish education system is altered so that it becomes part of the British education system? That would be a much more logical stance than the stance they are adopting, trying to maintain separate Scottish institutions without having a parliamentary and legislative back-up which allows for some reform.
I was interested in the contention made earlier that the Scottish Members of Parliament were very well integrated within the British Parliament. It is true that the Scottish Members have voted and followed the party line faithfully over the years. However, I have recently obtained a copy of a paper entitled "Studies in Public Policy" from the University of Strathclyde—No. 6, "A Test of Political Integration of Scottish Members of Parliament," covering the period before there were members of the SNP in the House. The first finding that the author, Mr. Keating, made from his analysis was this:
Scottish M.P.s contributed only 7 per cent. of the members and accounted for only 7·6 per cent. of the attendance at non-Scottish standing committees in this period. As they comprised 11·3 per cent. of the membership of the House of Commons, it is immediately apparent that they made a less than proportionate contribution to this work.
Other findings by Mr. Keating were as follows:
Scottish Members were rarely to be seen in committees on Bills relating only to England and Wales.
That should come as a great satisfaction to Members from English constituencies.
Where United Kingdom Bills contained separate provision for Scotland, Scottish membership of the appropriate standing committee was higher. From the early 1950s, Scottish M.P.s participated in United Kingdom standing committee work to a decreased extent. Scottish membership of committees on Bills in the category Trade, Industry, Transport, Agriculture and Fisheries was higher than the average.
These are subjects of specific concern to Scottish Members.
Scottish membership of committees on Bills concerned with Foreign, Commonwealth, Colonial and Defence matters was very low.
Over the period, the pattern of specialisation by Scottish members in standing committees became more pronounced.
That is an indication that over that period Scottish Members were quite rightly extremely interested in matters of specific

concern to Scotland, and devoted a great deal of their time and attention to those matters. It also indicates that there is a need for a Scottish Assembly which will give more time to the supervision of those Scottish matters that Scottish Members have had to pay so much attention to in this British House of Commons.

Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman has just made the point that Scottish Members are closely interested in Scottish matters, yet he intends to vote in favour of a Bill which will prevent Scottish Members playing any part in this House on a large number of Scottish matters.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong, because there will be Scottish Members of the Assembly who will be given the primary responsibility of dealing with the functions of the Scottish Executive. It is right and reasonable that those matters should be dealt with in Scotland, and it will be much to the advantage of the country.

Mr. Galbraith: The point is that, according to the document that the hon. Gentleman has just read out, Scottish Members form an excessive part of the membership of those committees dealing with financial matters, and that because they are not dealing with housing, local government and education they will no longer be able to make the same contributions to those committees.

Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has also got it wrong, because where subjects are not devolved Scottish Members, who will still be in this House, will have the right and opportunity to be represented on the committees, so that the interests of Scotland will be taken care of in that respect. But the matters being devolved will come under the scrutiny of elected Members of the Assembly, who will have that democratic duty placed upon them.
It is right and proper that those elected for other purposes should not be able to interfere in the affairs of the Assembly. The Secretary of State for Scotland, who will still be in this House and dealing with a good number of functions, will in no way be responsible for the work being carried out by the First Secretary of the Praesidium—or whatever it is—of the Scottish Assembly. The First Secretary will be responsible to the Scottish


Assembly. Therefore, that part of the jigsaw fits in quite well.
I should like to say one pacifying thing to the English Members, if I may dare to do so. One of the propagandists of the Union was Daniel Defoe, who is known for a work called "Gulliver's Travels" [Hon. Members: "What?"] I am sorry. I should have said that he wrote "Robinson Crusoe". I must have left my childhood behind me much more than some other hon. Members. Daniel Defoe wrote in support of the Union:
A prosperous and contented Scotland, far from impoverishing England, could only add to England's wealth and security.
In the event, the Union has not added to Scotland's wealth and prosperity, though it has certainly added to England's security and wealth. Conversely, a discontented Scotland will not be a comfortable partner or a particularly good friend in adversity to England. Therefore, it is better that the Scots should be allowed to express themselves in their own parliamentary fashion.
If hon. Members are worried that after devolution Scots Members will be able to vote on English matters—though that is a custom that my hon. Friends and I have tried to avoid—I can assure them that, should they put forward an amendment to prevent Scottish Members from so interfering in the affairs of England as to cause the discontent to which reference has been made, my party would willingly support it. If there is a subsequent proposal to establish an English Assembly, we shall be well inclined. We should give the English Members support for the creation of that Assembly if that was what they wished.
The hon. Members from Northern Ireland have been offered a constitutional convention which may give them an increased membership in this House. It is a crumb of hope, and they may believe that it will come to pass, but they may find themselves continuing under direct rule. If they wish to have a highly centralised form of government, if they wish the supreme authority of this House to be maintained, without allowing any devolution of powers, they may find themselves in a trap and never have an Assembly for Northern Ireland.
I could go on to criticise the Government for their timidity and delay. But

my hon. Friends did that in the pre-run of this debate last year. As for the Tories, I was not disappointed by the speech of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire. He clearly enunciated the Conservative Party's policy on devolution—that it does not have one and that it does not intend to do much about devolution. The English king most relevant to the Conservatives is Ethelred the Unready. They are quite unready to assume any responsibilities in playing their part in government. If there were any doubt about that, one has only to point out that in Scotland the CBI, their main ally, was uncertain and critical of Conservative devolution policy. We had a hint that the Conservatives might be interested in the Government of Ireland type of solution for the Scottish Assembly. We shall seek to move an amendment so that they may have the opportunity to vote for that notion, which seems to commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman answer one question from an English Member? What would be the position of the Scottish National Party on the Shetland Islands, if they should decide by referendum that they preferred the status quo? Would it still be the SNP's position that they must have the hon. Gentleman's brand of Scottish separatism stuffed down their throats, regardless of whether they wanted it?

Mr. Wilson: The SNP's position on Shetland has been made abundantly clear. So far as I am aware, the Shetland Island Council has decided not to hold the referendum, so we shall just wait and see what it decides to do. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the hon. Gentleman's policy?"]

Mr. James Sillars: rose—

Mr. Buchan: rose—

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is always loth to give way to me, so I cannot see why I should give way to him now. The island council decided to have a referendum. Since then it has changed its mind. We shall have to wait and see what it wishes to propose.
The SNP's attitude to the Bill is clear. We consider that it represents a beginning, the planting of the seed. I hope that the House will not, out of deliberate intent or invincible ignorance, spurn the wishes of the Scottish people, which have been clearly indicated over a long period, for more control over their own affairs. Scotland both expects and demands that the Bill shall have its Second Reading tonight.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Note, note—let my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council—note the words in the opening sentence of the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson): "the first step along the road to self-government". I gently tell my hon. Friends, before anybody says too much about my being sometimes, but by no means always, in the so-called Tory Lobby in the next three days, that it would be the same kind of thing as saying that my right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench are in the Scottish National Party Lobby. I hope that neither of those things are said, because the argument should not be conducted on that level. It should not be said either that I am in the Tory Lobby or that anyone else is in the SNP Lobby. Let us get that argument out of the way.
I hope that the Lord President noted what was said by the hon. Member for Dundee, East, yet again about gobbling up oil revenues. Unless it has exclusive use of the oil revenues the Assembly is not much use to those in the SNP who sit on the third Bench below the Gangway.

Mr. Foot: We are not introducing the Bill for their benefit.

Mr. Dalyell: The Lord President says that the Bill is not for their benefit. Maybe that is his intention, but some of us are concerned that it is the effect of what he does. Some of us think that it was precisely for their benefit, no doubt unintentionally, that this Bill was introduced. Let us be clear who will be the beneficiaries if the Bill is passed—the SNP.

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend is quite wrong.

Mr. Dalyell: If I am wrong, that must be demonstrated.
One of the major objections to the Bill is that it provides not the remotest chance of a lasting settlement between Scotland and England. Do any of us believe, wherever we sit in the House and on whatever side of the devolution argument we have been, that the governmental arrangements formulated in the 1977 Scotland Bill will still be operational in 1987 or 1990?
My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) said that he would be happy if the Bill were to last half a century. In reply to his interesting speech I say that the Bill has no chance of working for half a century or even for five or 10 years.
The Bill is a stepping stone to further changes of some kind or another. It is not a stable resting place for five or 10 years, let alone centuries. Perhaps the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) had a point when he said that we would end up with federalism. I think the end result will be worse than that. This measure has not a hope of lasting.
I shall spare the House alliterative lists of being able to vote on the gut issue of politics in relation to Birmingham but not Bathgate. The fact is that the question with which I interrupted the Prime Minister on Thursday about my voting on issues affecting West Bromwich but not West Lothian, and his voting on issues affecting Carlisle but not Cardiff, is all too real and will not just go away.
If these alliterative lists simply symbolised some technical problem in the Bill, the House could be certain that Ministers would have ironed it out since February, if for no other reason than to spare themselves from having to listen to grinding repetition from me. That alone would have been ample reward and would have made their work solving the West Lothian-West Bromwich problem worth while.
The truth is that the West Lothian-West Bromwich problem is not a minor hitch to be overcome by rearranging the seating in the devolutionary coach. On the contrary, the West Lothian-West Bromwich problem pinpoints a basic design fault in the steering of the devolutionary coach which will cause it to crash into the side of the road before it has gone a hundred miles.
For how long will English constituencies and English hon. Members tolerate


not just 71 Scots, 36 Welsh and a number of Ulstermen but at least 119 hon. Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on English politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Ireland? Such a situation cannot conceivably endure for long.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East said that members of his party would not vote on English matters, but that does not face up to the problem of the need for a Government to be sustained. The real problem is that of having a subordinate Parliament in part, though only part, of a unitary State.
Hon. Members will recall that between 1964 and 1966 the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), had enough to say about 12 Ulstermen voting in the tight Divisions. Twelve is an anomaly that could normally be borne with fortitude, but 119 is an entirely different matter.
A second of my lengthy list of reasons why this proposed settlement cannot conceivably endure and will have the life of a butterfly lies with the inevitable frustration of the Assemblymen being unable to honour the promises that they have made on account of what they would claim are lack of powers over the economy from Westminster and lack of money from a parsimonius English Treasury that is unwilling to allocate oil revenues. Within weeks of arriving at the High School they will be clamouring for more. Not only will the SNP Members clamour for more, but the Conservative and Labour Members will also do so. Everyone in the Assembly will be united in clamouring for more.
If the object is to counter the SNP, we must diagnose that much of its impetus is fuelled not by a desire for 150 Assemblymen in Edinburgh but by a desire for North Sea oil revenues and a mosaic of petty dissatisfactions, some of which are the responsibility of central Government and more of which have little to do with government of any kind. For example, governments, local or national, cannot do much about the condescensions of football commentators which are as irritating to me as they are to the SNP.
We are voting tonight to jump from the bank of the river on to a log raft which is bound to break up as we are carried downstream to a separate Scottish State. This is a journey upon which this party is united in not wanting to embark.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is not in the Chamber. When he refers to "an on-going process—1926, 1939", some of us must ask "Where does this on-going process stop?" The logical conclusion is that an "on-going process" leads to the solution that the SNPs want—a separate Scottish State. It is no good saying that we are all involved in an "on-going process". If we do not want separation, someone at some time has to make up his mind precisely where this on-going process stops.
Before we come to the question of voting I would like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State a factual question to which I genuinely do not know the answer. It concerns the new clauses about the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Have the Judicial Committee or the judges been consulted and what is the Judicial Committee's view of the task which has been handed to it? Is it up to the Judicial Committee to decide what might seem at one level to be pure questions of law but what at many other levels may be thought to be the most delicate issues of political decision. What do the judges themselves think about it?
I come to the question of voting. The Tory amendment seems designed to patch up internal disagreements. I must say to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) that it seems that the amendment has been spatchcocked together in an ill-thought-out haste, the kind of haste that has bedevilled so much of the discussion on devolution. It was spatchcocked together without thinking, to try to slap together the best of both worlds, and it is therefore muddled. One can have umpteen constitutional conferences, all thrashing round, to use the right hon. Gentleman's words, but they will not be able to devise a way in which a subordinate Parliament can operate in part, but only part, of a single kingdom.
It is no use pretending that constitutional conferences between now and July will do anything which discussion in the House of Commons did not achieve in


January and February. Therefore, I hope that some of the Conservative Members who showed a serious interest in January or February will abstain from voting on a frankly unworthy amendment which they must know in their heart of hearts is disreputable. For my part, I shall be one of the first into the Government Lobby to vote against the Conservative amendment.
I turn now to deal with my vote on the main Question. In the past every one of us has voted for aspects of his or her party's policy about which we were less than enthusiastic. On occasions we have had to swallow and vote. This Bill, however, is different. Public expenditure cuts, Health Service charges and other matters, we may dislike. But they are subject to change and alteration. This Bill, if passed, leads to irrevocable consequences. Once an Assembly is established in the High School, I do not see it being abolished in the lifetime of any of us here. We should be saddled with it long after the next election and long after dozens of elections after that—certainly by that time in the form of a separate Scottish Parliament.
It may be said "Ah! But there is the referendum." Here the House will forgive me for being once bitten and twice shy. Last year many of us, not me, did vote for the Second Reading of the Scotland and Wales Bill because we were given to understand that the Government regarded Second Reading literally as an agreement for the House of Commons to debate and examine their plans for devolution. That was the argument put forward. I did not go along with it. I think I am being fair on this. However, hardly had hon. Members emerged from the Lobby than Ministers began saying something different—saying that the House of Commons had voted decisively for the principle of devolution. This was quite a different story.
Before 22nd February 1977—Black Tuesday or Good Tuesday according to view—how often were we taunted with the tease—those of us who took a different view of the guillotine—that we had voted in favour of the principle of devolution and therefore were under an obligation to accept the guillotine?
Even having said all this, if I thought that the desire for an Assembly in Edinburgh was the considered judgment of

the overwhelming majority of the Labour Party members in Scotland I might not have decided to vote against my Government. Indeed, there are many members of the Labour Party in Scotland who, quite honourably, do not think that a Member of Parliament should vote against the three-line Whip. I understand and respect that view. There are a great many fewer who believe nowadays in an Assembly for its own sake. Their major feeling, as we found in the Shetlands and elsewhere, is that they deeply regret that the party was ever hooked.
Perhaps this was best put by Ernest Leslie, the East of Scotland AUEW organiser, at the end of a meeting of trade union officials under the chairmanship, the other Thursday, of David Graham, who is known to some of us. What Ernest Leslie said to me was "You cannot possibly abstain. I shall be angry with you if you vote against the Labour Government and even angrier if you do not." That represents the feelings of many of those who have worked hard over the years to sustain Labour Members of Parliament.
I confess to irritation with only one grounp of my hon. Friends. It is not the pro-devolvers or those who believe in loyalty to the party come what may. I respect them. My vexation is with those who say "Of course, when we have got the Assembly we look to folk like you to stop separation." I reply "You have no right to say that when you have put such a formidable weapon as an Assembly in the hands of the separatists." The only difference this time is between those of us who think that we have to take on separatism now and others who judge chat we can fend off the challenge later. By that time—this is my judgment—the devolutionary coach, if this Bill is passed, will be on a motorway without exit roads to a separate Scottish State—a journey on which my right hon. and hon. Friends are unwilling to embark.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. William Craig: I can follow very easily the remarks of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). He argues his case well. I can understand and appreciate his fears, even though I do not share them. I was elected to this House on a specific undertaking to work for the maintenance of the Union of Great Britain and Northern


Ireland. I was also elected on the specific undertaking to seek the re-establishment in Northern Ireland of a Parliament of Northern Ireland with powers no less than the former Stormont.
It is true, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, that as we framed our policy we saw the logical development of a federal State of the United Kingdom and that that would serve all our interests to the best advantage. But we were realistic enough to realise that the United Kingdom, as a political entity, was a long way from seriously examining the possibility of the federal approach. Many people did not even understand what the word "federal" meant. We in Ulster certainly recognised that we might have to reach the federal State by stages of devolution. We saw nothing inconsistent in that posture.
The question I ask is: having been elected on such a basis, can I support this Bill? I certainly cannot turn it down on the basis that devolution is in conflict with the essential unity of the United Kingdom. I can turn it down only if I am satisfied that this measure would not work and would contribute to the dissolution of the United Kingdom. However, as a principle it does not follow that this would be the case.
Next to the current Irish debate, this must be the longest debate to occupy the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It has been hashed about in one way or another for at least 15 years, and we have come to the point where a decision of some sort must be taken. The last thing that we can afford to do is to put this question into an indefinite limbo.
We have to face this question on a number of different grounds. Perhaps the most immediate is the discontent that exists in Scotland. I am in no position to judge the size of that discontent, but the House will ignore it at its peril. It is certainly clear that a considerable number of people feel that the mode of government in Scotland could be improved. Perhaps one of the encouraging aspects of the Bill is that if Parliament, in its wisdom, decides to approve these proposals it will be for the people of Scotland to decide whether or not it improves the form of government. I cannot

honestly say that I am totally happy with that situation, but surely it should answer the argument that the Bill could be in conflict with the will of the people of Scotland.
One reason why I am inclined to support the Bill is that it tackles a problem of a much broader dimension. I feel that there is a major need for parliamentary reform. Parliament has not changed much through the years in practical terms, but circumstances and conditions have changed. The scope and extent of government affecting people has changed, and this is making itself felt in every part of the United Kingdom community.
There is a growing disenchantment with the way in which the House works. I believe that our fault lies not in examining proposals for change but in the fact that we have not really looked at constitutional reform in a big enough way. It has been far too much like a patchwork quilt. We have people taking cards off the top of the pack and throwing us into vague institutions in Europe—institutions which the Government have told us may well be enlarged in scope and size, and whose character may be changed. Yet there has been no real thought-out policy on the constitutional impact of such changes. At the bottom of the pack, we have people taking cards away for devolved institutions—local governments and regional councils. In the middle, we have never managed to get the total picture of how best the United Kingdom should be governed. That is what I should prefer to see happen, but if anyone can persuade me that that is likely to happen after 15 years of arid debate, I shall be the most surprised man in Parliament. I am now convinced that if we are to improve the government of the United Kingdom we should make a start. Provided that we do that in such a way that we do not jeopardise the essential unity of the United Kingdom, I am prepared to give it a try.
There is a great deal in the Bill that I can commend. It makes a good, honest effort at doing a difficult job inside a unitary State. It is bound to be experimental in nature. We are tackling something of which we have not had a great deal of experience. The Bill has


struck a reasonable balance in the distribution of power and of power sharing in a way that does not offend my nostrils. But there are some aspects which will need a great deal more thought, and at the moment I should be against them. I should like to think that the House, in its wisdom, will give me and other hon. Members the opportunity to try to improve the Bill as it makes its way through the House.
I can make one categoric statement. I find the idea of a fixed-term Parliament very damaging to the whole concept of parliamentary democracy and Cabinet Government. By "Cabinet Government", I mean the doctrine of collective responsibility. We take a very big risk in the way that this is written into the Bill, and it needs to be looked at again.
I am not very happy with the machinery for appointing the Executive. It is typical of the sort of tizzy that we have got ourselves into in this House. We want to experiment with devolved parliamentary institutions, but because of nervousness, we want to do it without people realising the full extent of what we are doing. Therefore, we call it not a Scottish Parliament but a Scottish Assembly, and we do not call it a Scottish Executive, Government or Cabinet; we use some new terminology. There is to be a Chief Secretary to head the Administration.
Looking at the way in which these matters are phrased, I wonder whether we are getting Cabinet-type Government. The Secretary of State will appoint the Executive—admittedly on the advice of the Chief Secretary as defined by the Assembly—but the Bill leaves me puzzled about what happens when the Chief Secretary wants to remove one or other of his Scottish Secretaries. Does the Secretary of State automatically take his advice? Is it for the Chief Secretary to say that he wants to dispense with so-and-so's services and to ask for his resignation? There is nothing in the Bill which automatically brings about that situation, because the proposal is not structured on the basic concept of British parliamentary government. However, perhaps that is a point to be pursued in greater detail in Committee.
The same could be said about my criticism of the financial arrangements. I

go along with much of the thinking in the White Paper. There is a lot of sound sense in the White Paper, but there is nothing in the Bill that makes sense. The Bill states that Her Majesty's Government will make available to the Scottish Assembly and Executive a sum of money, no doubt after proper negotiation. We are not told on what basis that negotiation can take place or what the object of the negotiation will be. I have no doubt what it should be, because Scotland is to remain part of the United Kingdom, is to share the same burden of taxation, and is to contribute, according to its means, to the revenue of the whole United Kingdom. But how are we going to guarantee that the Scottish taxpayer will get equal treatment with any taxpayer elsewhere in the United Kingdom, or that he may, if his need is such, get more than he contributes? There must be some precise guidelines to assist in this kind of negotiation. It would be better to have the guidelines in the Bill and to let the Bill go through with fair winds than to have a major storm right at the beginning.
The really difficult part of the Bill for most hon. Members seems to be representation in this House for Scotland. I have a feeling that we are getting our parliamentary pants in a twist over nothing. On the one hand, the argument is that the essential unity of the United Kingdom must not be disturbed, and, on the other, the argument is that this Parliament of the United Kingdom must be used as the Parliament of England and that it would be wrong, when it is acting as a Parliament of England, for hon. Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to influence the decisions on legislation solely affecting England.
Of course, as we experiment with devolution, the procedures and practices of this House must take account of new situations. I do not see the need for the whole of the House of Commons for the United Kingdom to meet and deal solely with legislation that is exclusive to England. We know that the House cheerfully sends Scottish business to a Grand Committee, but in theory it comes back to the House. Northern Ireland business is sent to a Northern Ireland Committee, although it must be said that very few hon. Members ever know what goes on in that Committee.

Mr. James Dempsey (Coatbridge and Airdree): They are never here.

Mr. Craig: I do not know whether they are here, but it seems that they have put a great deal of trust in the Northern Ireland Committee.
I am not saying that the present form is necessarily the right form. There are various procedural methods that can be developed.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman address himself to the other difficulty, of how we decide which Government take over after an election if there is a majority, let us say, of Labour Members for the whole of the United Kingdom and a majority of Conservative Members for England alone? If that is to result in a Labour Government, how long are 45 million Englishmen going to put up with that?

Mr. Craig: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about a Government for the United Kingdom or a Government for England? Let us not forget that the essential power of Government still resides in this House. That will still be so even if the Bill becomes law. The House will continue to have control of the major sources, if not all the sources, of taxation. It will have essential control over the broad guidelines of economic activity. In reality it will control social economic policy. All that can happen in Scotland will be a variation of priorities according to local problems. It would be foolish to exaggerate the powers of the Bill beyond that.
We must adjust our thinking to a totally new situation. If the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) is not happy about the way in which the Government of the United Kingdom are elected, in the sense that they are also to be the Government for England, it is time that England started doing some thinking about having a Parliament of its own, or English regional Parliaments. Let us move towards a federal United Kingdom. I shall support that every inch of the way.
One aspect that bothers me is the great hustle and bustle that it shown by the Government in dealing with this thorny and difficult issue. It is an issue that does not have anything like the urgency of the situation that faces Northern Ireland, where there is a con-

spicuous lack of hustle and bustle. If we do not do something in Scotland in the reasonably near future, something will happen, but that applies even more so if something is not done fairly soon in Northern Ireland. If something is not done, the chances of peace will further diminish. People are dying in Northern Ireland.
I have sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and some of his colleagues for having seen the need to table an amendment to the effect that the Bill should not be given a Second Reading, because of the Governments' attitude towards Northern Ireland. However, I take a rather different point of view from that which is expressed in the amendment. I am not terribly interested in whether we now have another tier of local government. What annoys me about the approach to Northern Ireland is that we have the most undemocratic form of Government that can be envisaged in a British sense.
Under the constitution as is stands certain powers are devolved to an Assembly that no longer exists. Those powers, instead of being redistributed into the Mother of Parliaments, are administered by Order in Council in a most arbitrary and undemocratic manner. They are dealt with by a Parliament that has little shadow of a mandate and little understanding of the problems. It is most unsatisfactory.
Should I facilitate the Government in their hustle and bustle and the shortening of debate on this controversial issue on Wednesday when the same desire to act is not shown in Northern Ireland? I shall support them tonight, because I think that the principle is right. I believe that the Bill has the makings of a very good beginning. However, I shall be doing a great deal of thinking between now and Wednesday, for the reasons that I have outlined.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. James Sillars: There has already been a fair amount of disagreement about the Bill inside and outside the Chamber. I think that I shall carry almost everyone with me when I say that there is little excitement about this measure in Scotland. The reason is not that people have gone off the boil


on the need for a Scottish Parliament but that there is nothing in the Bill to get excited about. Cosmetic improvements cannot disguise the fact that the Bill is not different in essence from the acutely depressing White Paper that was published in the autumn of 1975. There has been no significant leap forward in the Governments centralist imagination or their understanding of the historical forces at work in Britain and in Europe.
Despite the depressed outlook, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is quite right. The Bill has an enormous importance. Its correct name is the Catapult to Scottish Independence Bill. I shall explain why. However, one must confess immediately that it is a matter of judgment, and that all our judgments can be wrong. Indeed, only history will tell us who is right and who is wrong in their judgment on a constitutional issue of this sort and of this magnitude. I readily confess that it is simply a matter of judgment.
An Assembly that has no direct influence on the Scottish economy, and which is impotent on the fundamental question of the oil reserves, will not satisfy an increasingly self-confident and assertive Scottish nation.
It is important to impress upon the House why we need an Assembly, a Parliament, or a Scottish Government with economic power and a share in the oil revenues. The Bill specifically denies the Assembly the right and the means to reverse the catastrophic trend that has been so obvious a feature of Scottish economic performance since the early 1960s. The trend has been well charted by a series of reports, the latest of which is that produced by the Manpower Services Commission. Perhaps the most basic indicator is the Strathclyde Regional Report, which projects at its most pessimistic that 70,000 jobs will be lost in manufacturing between 1976 and 1983 in the Clydeside conurbation in the West of Scotland.
It is when we consider the policies of industrial regeneration and the machinery to ensure that that regeneration will happen that the superiority of an Assembly or Parliament with economic power begins to emerge. A number of those who seek to deny the Assembly power place all their faith in central

economic management and the principles of uniformity and harmonisation in the application of traditional regional policies. That continues despite the evidence that centralist policies and an obsession with uniformity have not worked.
The centralist theory is that when expansion takes place in the rich areas of England, and once it has mopped up all the spare industrial capacity and spare labour in areas such as the Midlands and the South-East of England, it moves into the development areas of South Wales, the North-East and the North-West and up into Scotland. That theory has never worked in practice. It has no prospect of working in the near or distant future. The expansion that arises in the Midlands and the South-East of England will be retained in those areas to cope with their unprecedented unemployment problem in the post-war period. If we continue to believe in and pursue centralist conceived regional policies, the decline of Scotland will continue, and in two or three years we shall be talking of levels of unemployment in Scotland of about 250,000.
We argue, on the other hand, that the United Kingdom has as wide a diversity in its economic make-up as it has in its social make-up. I know that I carry the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) with me in saying that the reason for this wide diversity in economic make-up is the uneven development of British capitalism. Diversity of problems and potential is a fact. If these problems are to be solved and our potential developed, it will be done only through creating the machinery of government which will allow different policies to be applied in different places.
The only hope for Scotland is economic self-management. If we are to achieve a substantial acceleration in our rate of economic growth, which is a prerequisite to a rapid upturn in employment prospects, and if we are to create an inherently strong Scottish economy out of the branch factory shambles which is at present falling apart, we shall require an instrument of decision making and resource allocation which, being Scottish based and obsessed with Scottish priorities, can feel and touch the everyday situation in a way this place never can.
With the base of the Scottish economy in danger of structural collapse, and with


thousands of our people facing permanent unemployment, with all that implies in the erosion and disruption of individual personalities, it is the needs of the people that should determine the extent of constitutional change and the powers to be exercised by the Assembly. But that is not the case. Expediency is paramount. It is the electoral prospects of the Labour Party and the shabby deals done in the corridors of this building which are determining the character, rôle and powers of the Assembly.
In this exercise Scotland is being treated, not as a nation, but as a political fiefdom to be manipulated in order to extract a "tribute" of seats towards a Labour majority in the next Parliament. This Bill is the least the Government calculate they can give without serious loss of support in Scotland, and the most that can be given without losing the guillotine motion on Wednesday. The Bill does not reject economic powers because there is no case for it. It is simply that the Government cannot deliver through Westminster. If this Bill contained economic powers, its defeat would be assured tonight, never mind on Wednesday.
The Bill is also deficient in that not one Scottish institutional finger can be laid upon the oil, nor can the Assembly decisively influence oil policy, nor determine an approach to resource management of oil which can make a significant contribution to the regeneration of Scotland's technical and engineering base.
I know that often, when a Scot talks about a Scottish share of the oil, he invites growls of disapproval. I do not advocate that all the oil revenues should go to a Scottish exchequer. I believe that there should be a split, 30 per cent. for Scotland and 70 per cent. to the rest of the United Kingdom, based on the pre-election assessment in the Labour Party that Scotland had 30 per cent. of the development needs area of the United Kingdom. But I want Scottish control of the downstream potential and of oil company purchasing and technical policy.
I make no apology for advocating such a policy. Those who turn scathing attacks on us have apparently taken a vow of silence on the giant take by the multinational oil companies. That criticism applies to the left wing of the Labour

Party as much as to its right wing. If it is right for the oil companies to dip their hands into the pool, why is it wrong for an economically depressed area, facing industrial collapse and the agony of enduring mass unemployment, to demand its share of the wealth, especially when that represents our one chance of breaking out of the cycle of poverty and despair? There are no Texaco or BP oil directors living in slum houses, but there are thousands upon thousands of Scottish people occupying such places. In the next three weeks there are to be television broadcasts from an area in Glasgow which is shameful to us all, and we know that there are no oil directors in socially deprived areas. Scotland has 18 out of the 21 areas of deprivation in the whole of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has referred to a forthcoming television programme, which is set in a council estate. Does he not agree that the problems which gave rise to the poverty and deprivation in that area may be the product, not of lack of money, but of wrong policies having been applied in the past? Perhaps what we need is, not more money slopping around, but a clearer analysis of what we want to do and clearer policies to meet the situation.

Mr. Sillars: A number of hon. Members on this side of the House formerly served on the Glasgow Corporation, and they will tell my hon. Friend that throughout their careers there was a grave lack of financial resources which compelled them to take policy decisions which they knew basically were not correct in the long term. I am not saying that an abundance of money will be the cure-all to these problems. My hon. Friend makes a good point, but if one is short of resources before one even starts the problems will never be solved.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that Glasgow has had a smaller share of cash for housing than any other city in Britain?

Mr. Sillars: No, I am not.

Mr. Heffer: I hope he is not, because it is not true.

Mr. Sillars: I am not saying that. I am saying that Glasgow has not had a


sufficient allocation of resources to overcome the problems that beset the people of Glasgow and the policy makers.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Compared with Liverpool, for example?

Mr. Sillars: I am not saying that Liverpool has had an abundance of resources and that because Littlewoods is there the people of Liverpool do better than people anywhere else. I am addressing my remarks to the situation of the people of Glasgow and to the lack of resources and potential for resources in a policy involving oil sharing.
Claims for economic powers and a direct share of oil will, I suspect, be met by the charge from the Government that to concede these would place in jeopardy the essential unity of the United Kingdom, to borrow that well-used phrase. Nothing must disturb that unity, even if the price is that Scottish people continue with soul-destroying levels of unemployment and the poverty of mind and spirit which that condition carries with it. It is an impossible price to ask, and it is tragicomic that such a price is asked for a United Kingdom that can never be the same in the future as it has been in the past. Over five years ago our entry to the Common Market changed the United Kingdom. Indeed, for Scotland the United Kingdom's entry to the EEC made independence not only essential but easier to achieve. That will remain the case so long as independence is pitched within the context of the European Community, and I believe that the referendum result in Scotland cannot be reversed.
Before we entered the EEC, independence was readily equated with separation in the minds of the people. It is still in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). The people exercise a sensible anxiety about access to major world markets for Scottish products and an act of separation—that is to say, involving Scotland leaving an important customs union—would place us in considerable industrial difficulty.
There are no such worries when we discuss the Scottish independence within the customs union of the European Community. There would certainly be a change in Scotland's political status and standing, but no fundamental change in

our trading relations with the rest of the United Kingdom, or alteration to our right of access to a home market of 250 million people in Europe.
All Common Market countries enjoy independence, but it is an independence qualified by the rules of the treaty and shared sovereignty. To argue Scottish independence within the EEC is to put an anti-separatist case. A Scotland independent in Europe would retain a close working relationship and partnership with England in that great togetherness known as the customs union of the Common Market. Both countries will have a common interest and family-based associations quite unique in Europe. It will, however, be a partnership of equals, with Scotland gaining what we lack now—a direct voice and vote in the Council of Ministers where the real decisions will increasingly be taken.
Independence within the Common Market will, I believe, become the only practical independence argument in Scotland in the years immediately ahead. At present Scotland is on the outer fringe of Europe geographically and politically. We can do nothing about our geography, but we can do something about our exposed and vulnerable fringe political position.
Given that we are in the Common Market to stay, there is a compelling logic about the case for Scottish independence within that organisation. One only needs to mention independence in that context to feel the political pulse of the Unionists beat in rapid time. In fact, it very often moves my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian to forget about his normal question and write long detailed letters to the Scotsman.
Some people might believe that it is foolish to forecast independence arising out of the kind of Bill and the kind of Assembly being discussed tonight. But the reason I will vote for the Bill is that once the Assembly is established it will become the institution through which the Scots will focus on the issues of the economy, oil and other resources, and the growing dimension of Europe. Inevitably that Assembly will seek economic power, it will seek a say in oil policy, and circumstances will compel it to reach out for a direct part in European decision making.
I know that it is the fond wish of the Government that this Assembly will be the means of ending agitation for Scottish independence, and that it will take the heat out of the matter, but both the Government and this House will be foolish to believe that. [Interruption.] I am glad that some Members agree with me.
It is by the treatment of this crucial Scottish issue by some of those who are now agreeing with me, and by the grudging, carping, hostile way that the majority of people in this House have approached over the years a legitimate Scottish aspiration, that the middle way of mild devolution has been all but removed from the agenda. The day is now long gone when the Scots could be bought off with the shadow of Home Rule. Perhaps two years ago a good devolution package would have done it. I doubt very much whether that will be enough in the present and particularly future circumstances, especially when we have an institution which will focus on Scottish problems, and on which the Scottish people will focus as a solution to their problems.
This Assembly will not be the end of the argument. It is simply the beginning of the end of Whitehall dominance of Scottish affairs. The Assembly is the start of a process of fundamental change. It is the first step in what will become for Westminster a forced march along the road to Scottish independence within the European Community.
This House may do what it likes tonight on the Second Reading of this Bill. It can do what it likes on the timetable motion on Wednesday. This House can say what it wants up until the next election, and then will come the decision of the Scottish people. I do not think that there is anything that anyone can do about it. It is a matter of judgment, I agree, but, in my opinion, a Scottish Parliament is coming whether Westminster likes it or not.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I certainly agree with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) in that I believe that, in relation to this subject and many others, nothing stands still. We are dealing with something that is moving, and we cannot

stay in our present position. That is why we have to approach this whole subject constructively and positively and not negatively.
I find myself very much in agreement with what was said by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), in that we are examining here the whole of our structure of government and the institutions of government. I believe that we are simply kidding ourselves in this House if we try to deal with this question simply as a manifestation of nationalism or of particular political movements in Scotland, Wales, or any other part of the United Kingdom. I believe that we have to look at this question, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) did, in the context of the United Kingdom as a whole.
We in this House all believe in democracy, but, having listened to some of the speeches in the debate, my concern is that many hon. Members see democracy and the institutions that go with it as something far too static, instead of as something that is evolving and changing. I believe that we have to be ready to evolve and change if we are to turn our institutions to the best service of the people of our country.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), whose logic I respect in relation to this matter, argued that it is not right for us to move because of the extent to which we have a unitary State at the present time. It is true that for many generations—indeed, for centuries—we have had this unitary State, but it has not, I suggest, been absolutely static. Changes have taken place which in one sense have strengthened the unitary State. I have in mind the tremendous forces moving us towards centralisation during the whole period since the unitary State was formed.
The development of industry and commerce and the development of a modern economy have made the State very much more centralised than hitherto. We have seen this process also in the development of the institutions of government itself. Indeed, we have now reached a stage where, of all the industrial democracies in the world, with the possible exception of Japan, we are probably the most centralised. Certainly we are one of the most centralised States


in the Western world. We have, therefore, to recognise that we started as a unitary state but have become increasingly more centralised.
What we face today is not just a manifestation of particular feelings in particular parts of the United Kingdom. It is very much more the reaction of people to the way in which our unitary State has developed, particularly in more recent years. Together with many of those to whom I speak in Scotland and elsewhere, I feel that there is a basic dissatisfaction with the machinery of government of our unitary State. It is not confined to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland but applies also to many parts of England. There is a very high degree of disillusionment in many parts of the United Kingdom, and it is not confined to the two countries affected by the constitutional Bills.
It is the democratic institutions in which we believe which are under test. If we fail to meet this test and fail to respond to it, the worry is that not only the United Kingdom will suffier. Many of the institutions of modern democracy will also suffer if modern democracy shows itself unable to meet the challenges which face it at the present time.
What concerns me more than anything else—and certainly brings me to the views which I have and which transend any question of Home Rule for Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales—is the overriding need to reform the institutions of democracy within this country, because, as I said, it is democracy itself that will fail unless we respond constructively and positively to it.
As I said a moment ago, one of the biggest failures of the development of our unitary State is to have allowed the degree of centralisation to become as concentrated as it is at present. What we have to do is to turn back some of that centralisation if we are to have any hope of maintaining the respect that we ought to have for our democratic institutions.
What we need more than anything is the dispersal of power. We have tried the dispersal of power in some ways—for example, in relation to the dispersal of administrative power. But I believe that we have got to a new stage—I am saying nothing particularly novel in relation

to this, and certainly I repeat what the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) said—when the last thing we want in this debate is simply cauld kale het up.
I believe that we have to look beyond the dispersal of administrative power, which we have seen over recent generations, to a wider dispersal of power which extends to legislative and political power. Frankly, one of the things that has turned me to support devolution in one form or another—I have come increasingly to this view in recent years—is the absence of willingness on the part of the central institution of the United Kingdom Parliament itself to be prepared and ready to reform itself. That has given the biggest and strongest force towards devolution.
It is not surprising that that has happened. Indeed, I believe that in this respect to try to consider some form of devolution is the only course open to us. It may not be the best course. Frankly, I should far prefer to see Parliament constructively reforming itself from within. But in the 13 years that I have been in this House, that is something that has not happened. Every time there has been any attempt to come to the democratic reform of our institutions here, nothing has happened.
Therefore, I believe that we have to look at this issue round the other way, and instead of necessarily reforming from within—something that has not happened; I shall come to the question of timing, which is the critical thing—we have to consider the matter very much more from the outside. We have to see how we can try to influence our democratic institutions and achieve the kind of dispersal of power which I believe is so necessary at present.
I have spoken on what I feel is the way in which we should approach this whole question of devolution. I do not intend tonight to go into the details of this Bill, because my views on it are in many ways well known. What I have tried to describe is what motivates me and many thousands of others to whom I speak. Over the last two years I have become attracted to the other alternative, which the right hon. Member for Down, South mentioned, of reform along federal lines in order to meet this situation,


because in relation to constitutional reform, it almost certainly offers us the best prospect of stability.
Equally, however, I accept—I hope in a sense of realism—that a system such as the federal system is impossible of achievement in the short term because the major partner to the United Kingdom—England—is, as of now not prepared to accept it. But again, at the same time—this is the dilemma in which people such as myself and many outside the House find themselves—I believe that the problem in the short term is of such intensity that we cannot wait for the long term and for the largest partner in the United Kingdom to come to this point of view.
Therefore, accordingly, I judge the proposals that we have for devolution, and the Bill before the House, in terms of the question whether they could fit in or evolve towards—I believe that democratic institutions can never be fixed—a structure that could eventually be one that is federal in type.

Mr. Robert Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the position in England is not static? For instance, the New Forest District Council—covered by part of my constituency—has recently passed unanimously a resolution calling for the establishment of regional councils. That is, effectively a call for the replacement of county councils and the democratisation of health and water services. My hon. Friend may take comfort from the fact that others are beginning to stir towards his vision.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. The last thing that I would do, holding the view that I have, would be to dictate to my colleagues south of the border what they should do. Having taken a particular line on this issue, and having had correspondence south of the border, I am encouraged, because I believe that a more constructive and positive view is being taken.
I come back to my central point. What I have to judge is whether the Government's proposals do or do not help lead us towards a form of devolved structure which could eventually evolve into a federal type structure for the United Kingdom. The basic question—to put

it in the terms of the right hon. Member for Down, South—is: how do we move from the unitary state to a federation? I believe that we shall not be able to move to that situation in one step. We shall have to go by stages and I believe that one of those stages can be a form of devolution.
I also believe that this Bill is better than the last Bill. It contains more of a federated structure in terms of division of powers, and so on. In that respect I believe that it is an improved step in the right direction. All I hope is that the Bill can be improved in Committee. I support the Second Reading of the Bill. I welcome the fact that the Government are at least attempting to meet the very big challenge which faces the country at present.
To those hon. Members who oppose the Bill I would simply say in all humility that time is no longer on our side. We have debated this subject for years. The debates simply cannot continue to go on for ever, because unless there is action of some sort people will become impatient and frustrated.
I am totally convinced that the majority of people in Scotland want to remain part of the United Kingdom. But if we delay we shall find that impatience and frustration are the sort of things which turn people from being moderates into extremists. To my own Front Bench I say with all sincerity that, while I respect what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgehire said this afternoon, we must face the facts about constitutional reform in relation to this House of Commons.
We all want broad agreement. But remember that the constitutional change of entry to Europe was not achieved with full agreement. In the end it had to be achieved by a number of people deciding that this was the right thing and having the resolve to follow it through. That is why I say with sincerity that lip service to devolution is not enough. None of us as hon. Members or as parties can have the respect of anyone if we say that we support devolution but oppose every practical step to try to bring it into effect. Nor do I feel that the challenge will go away if we ignore it.
I yield to no one in my support of the integrity of the United Kingdom. As


one who has spent all his life in Scotland—and who hopes to continue to do so and my family after me—I say with the deepest sincerity that the biggest danger of all is that of doing nothing. That is the price which we must face tonight.
I end with this warning. If we do nothing, or if we delay too long, it is the United Kingdom—in which most of us so passionately believe—which in the end we shall betray.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: Anyone taking part in this debate could not wish to follow a more interesting and impressive contribution than the one which we have just heard. I therefore consider it fortunate that I am speaking immediately following the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith).
The hon. Gentleman has given us a model of the way in which one expresses disagreement with one's own Front Bench. On this occasion that is a model in which I am greatly interested, because I shall follow the remarks that the hon. Gentleman made in that part of his speech.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns avoided one great difficulty. That, too, has characterised this debate. He talked very largely about matters other than the Bill before us. It is curious that, as we look back upon the speeches which have been contributed so far, we find that many right hon. and hon. Members talked about the Bill only by the way, as if it were a minor part of the subject under discussion. They talked about all manner of other aims and purposes which they have, and they ended up speaking briefly about the legislation which is supposed to be the centre of our debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) himself does not really want the Bill for its own sake and for its major purposes. He agrees fundamentally with those who want the Bill as a stepping stone to something else. That is not the attitude of the Secretary of State. He wants the Bill and nothing but the purposes of the Bill.
Then we turn to our colleagues representing the Scottish National Party, whose attitude is now crucial in many ways. We have seen two interesting and contradictory developments in recent times.

Since we last debated this legislation, the SNP has held its annual conference, at which its members decided after due consideration that separation was the only policy for them. However, today they turn up and say that they will support the Government on this legislation. They do not want the Bill for the purposes of the Bill; they want it as a stepping stone to something else. They do not disagree with me about that, because they are honourable men who always accept the truth when they are confronted with it. Clearly there is no disagreement so far.
Then we come to other right hon. and hon. Members, and we find that there is a small minority of them who support the Bill. Indeed, only a very few of them will even contribute to the debate.
I turn first to the bulk of my right hon. and hon. Friends. They display a lukewarm interest—never mind wholehearted support, to quote the phrase of a famous leader in British politics at present. I see at the far end of the Treasury Bench a senior member of the Cabinet, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. I am willing to give odds of 10 to 1 that no future historian will describe him as a wholehearted supporter of the proposal now being advanced by the Secretary of State for Scotland. We have no majority of feeling of support or argument in favour of this legislation, and I challenge anyone to produce evidence to the contrary.
At the same time, we find my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, of whose sincerity I have know for many years, saying that this is a most important piece of legislation. If it is, it should be supported on its merit and not in the highways and byways of British politics for all sorts of other reasons.
Here we come to the fundamental difficulty facing the House and the country. If it really be true, as the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns said, that this legislation is so long overdue and needed that we must begin the great process of remodelling all the purposes and structures of British democracy, surely right hon. and hon. Members ought to agree to support it, and to accept the historic responsibility for doing so, as a piece of legislation which is good and stable in itself, and for no other reason than that.

Mr. Hamish Watt: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the catalyst for this Bill was the legislation that took us into the Common Market?

Mr. Mendelson: I had intended to deal with the Common Market aspect later, but I will do so now. Of course it has something to do with this issue. The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—I regret his absence—told us in a previous debate that he was basically favourable to this legislation because, since our entry into the Common Market, the argument, prominently advanced, that it might do harm to the all-embracing position of the House of Commons had become less important. Of course, he is right. If he has been in favour of puncturing the all-embracing importance of the House of Commons by entering Brussels, it does not matter very much if he chips away at the House in some equally irresponsible manner. That is his consistent attitude, but it is not mine.
Some hon. Members think that the Common Market situation is not involved in all this discussion; I warn them that it is. It is involved not only in the substance of the matter. I warn particularly some of my hon. Friends that it is also involved in the peculiar procedures which the Cabinet have adopted in introducing a Bill of major constitutional importance with a guillotine motion even before the Committee stage, with the purpose of not allowing the House to see where it got on the legislation if we were to give it a Second Reading.
I warn some of my hon. Friends that if we allow the Government to carry the guillotine motion on Wednesday, the Government may use the argument as a precedent when the Bill for direct elections to the Common Market comes before us. Let the Government do it on one subject and they may say that they want to do it on another. That is why some of us will not vote for the guillotine on Wednesday.
The need for parliamentary and structural reform is realised in many circles, but one objection I have to that kind of reasoning is that while I believe fundamentally that there are grounds for dissatisfaction with the central direction of our affairs, I equally believe that this shows itself in constitutional discussion in very limited circles not because people

are dissatisfied with the constitution and its procedures but because they are dissatisfied with the economic and social reality of the treatment of our affairs over so many years and under different Governments.
I call in aid an illustration which can he denied or confirmed, if he wishes, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently went on a semi-official visit to Scotland, where he met all manner of people, and a very good job it was. He is a popular man. He had a number of interesting things to say. But let my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tell us how many Scotsmen or Scotswomen actually questioned the Prime Minister about devolution, or this Bill. Hardly any did so. They questioned him on unemployment, and, as one Scotsman put it, gave him a "roasting" before the Scottish Executive Committee of the Labour Party.
I do not know whether that is true in those terms, but it is certainly true that unemployment and economic ills were in their minds, and not devolution or tampering with the constitution. Hon. Members may be right in saying that it is now time to wake up and consider the constitutional situation. I am not a federalist, but they may be right and I may be wrong. What I am saying is that what is dangerous to democracy is to creat illusions before the people of Scotland and Wales, making them believe that their economic problems and ills can be cured by setting up Parliaments in competition with the House of Commons, creating ideas which will not be fulfilled.
Indeed, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire ought to agree with me, because they do not believe it either. They merely want to use the Scottish Assembly, once elected, as the continuing place of fighting government in London. That is their purpose. Their purpose is not constitutional improvement; it is to have an arena at their disposal. Of course Members in the SNP cheer me for the first time, because I am telling the House the truth, but I do not want the destruction of the United Kingdom and they do want it, as declared at their own conference. I do not want my right hon. and hon.


Friends to lend their good name to the creation of instruments which, as surely as night follows day, will bring about the dissolution of the United Kingdom.
We come, then, to the difficulty facing us tonight. Behind the Government's intentions there are general purposes and ideas worth supporting, but for the implementing of such structural changes of direction in the process of long-term improvement of our political system, three preconditions ought to be fulfilled. It ought to be done without illusions, without creating the impression that one is doing something else. The dilemma in which the Government find themselves is not being able to agree to the further demands for the grant of full economic independence to Scotland is precisely that they know—certainly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade knows—that the economic proposals of the Scottish National Party are nonsense. My right hon. Friend will never agree to them—all honour to him for that—and neither would I. That is their dilemma. First, therefore, the beginning of such structural change must be done without illusion.
Second, it ought to be done with the keen support of the majority of hon. Members for the proposals themselves. Third, it ought to be done, if possible, with the widest possible agreement throughout the House of Commons. If we are to begin a change of this kind, as the late Mr. Gaitskell used to say, referring to the Common Market, as far-reaching as to change 1,000 years of history, it ought to be done in the same way in regard to devolution.
On all those three grounds, this proposal falls down. It is put together, in the main, for immediate political purposes. No one can deny that charge. It is not worthy of the occasion, and that is why I shall oppose it in all its stages.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I am glad to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), because it was a fine speech. I thought it a brave speech, and I agree with his conclusions. It was a brave speech, just as the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) was brave, although I disagreed with his conclusions. It can do nothing but good for

Parliament when hon. Members on both sides stand up and say what they believe, without fear of their own Front Benches.
I add this point in support of what the hon. Member for Penistone said when he spoke about the Prime Minister's recent visit to Scotland. Having asked how many people had spoken to the Prime Minister about devolution, the hon. Gentleman gave his own answer—"Not many", implying that there was a lack of interest in devolution but considerable interest in jobs and prices. He is right. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the most recent opinion poll showed, over a fairly large sample of 1,000 or so, that only 3 per cent. of the people of Scotland gave devolution as their political priority.
There can be no doubt that, as so many hon. Members have said, this is a piece of political opportunism. One could scour the Highlands and Lowlands of Scotland and not find a hundred men who believed that this Bill was good and was being brought forward for reasons other than an effort to patch up the Labour Party's prospects in Scotland.
I can give hon. Members on the Government side of the House a piece of comfort. They do not need this Bill, because the opinion polls, for what they are worth, appear to be showing that the Labour Party is doing rather better in Scotland than it has been of late. Therefore, however well you do at the next election—I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I said "You", but I mean the Labour Party—

Mr. Speaker: I hope to be all right.

Mr. Sproat: And so say all of us, Mr. Speaker. However the Labour Party may do at the next election in Scotland, it will succeed or fail not on this issue but on the success or failure of its economic policies.
I think that it was the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) who said that many old arguments will be rehearsed both today and during the coming weeks if the Bill has its Second Reading and goes to Committee. I think that that is right, and it should be right, because it was noticeable that it was the repetition of arguments which were not particularly arcane, and not particularly subtle, but which amounted to hammer


blows of common sense that finally destroyed the Scotland and Wales Bill, and that is what we must do here.
I have found during the last few months in Scotland that the reason why there is a tide of opinion growing against the Bill—I do not say how strong the tide is, but such tide as exists is against the concept of a Scottish Assembly—is that people are saying in a straightforward and common sense way "We have enough government. We are fed up with regional councils, district councils and community councils, and whatever else happens, we do not want another tier of government." That is an old argument, but it is one that is swaying many minds in Scotland, and allied to that is the fact that most people think—and I believe rightly—that there are too many civil servants and there is too much bureaucracy, and they do not want any more.
I think I am right in saying that this afternoon the Secretary of State for Scotland said that if the Government had been able to think of a good way of giving taxation powers to the Scottish Assembly, they would have done so. It is merely the fact that nobody has been able to think of a satisfactory method of doing it that has stopped the Government from taking that step. That is another fear of the Scottish people, because if there is one thing upon which all parties are agreed it is that there is too much taxation. That is what the majority of people believe.
If the Scottish Assembly were set up, and if after a few months in existence it chanced to find a further way of taxing people in Scotland, that would put off people from all parts of the political spectrum. That is why, if the Bill gets a Second Reading, if the guillotine motion is passed, and if the Committee stage and Third Reading go through, the people of Scotland will throw the Bill out. It is a dangerous principle to rely on referendums to do the job of the House of Commons, and therefore I propose to fight the idea every inch of the way in this House. But if the matter goes to a referendum, I shall fight it there and be confident of victory.
Apart from the arguments about more bureaucracy, more government and more taxation—powerful though they are in

people's minds—at the end of the day the key argument which will sway the people in Scotland—and which should sway the people of the United Kingdom as a whole, and would if they were given the chance—is the slippery slope argument. Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns and the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) when they say that we should look at the way in which the House is run. Of course we should consider possible changes in the constitution. Nobody is saying that the status quo is totally satisfactory. What we are saying is that this particular Bill is a bad Bill and that if it is implemented it will lead us down the slippery slope towards the break-up of the United Kingdom.
I remind the House that seldom is it that words of wisdom drop from the lips of SNP Members, yet tonight we were privileged to be present on such an occasion, because the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said something like this: "we regard this Bill as being the first step down the road to separation". That is the truth. It is not just a question of the judgment of SNP Members. Their judgment has been so wrong in so many instances that we might not give much weight to them, but it is not just a question of judgment. The fact is that we now know that that is how they would act in a Scottish Assembly. They would seize every opportunity to drive a wedge between people in Scotland and those in England.
Almost the only Member who has spoken tonight strongly in favour of the Bill for its own sake—perhaps I should not even say that, but he certainly spoke in favour of the Bill—was the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), who spoke of the Bill as being a rotten, lousy Bill but one which he would support because it was the catapault to independence. Thus, there is the crazy situation that if the Government win tonight they will do so on the backs of those very people who are most dedicated to that objective which the Government claim they oppose; namely, the independence of Scotland.
Coming to the slippery slope argument, I cannot say how far down the slope the Bill will take us or at what time. However, I was interested to hear the hon. Member for South Ayrshire speak of the


appalling prospect of 250,000 unemployed in Scotland. If there were 250,000 unemployed in Scotland and if there were a Scottish Assembly, would not a fury arise in that Assembly, with shouts and demands for "Referendum now" to see whether Scotland should separate? If such a referendum were held and if, on the backs of unemployment, it were answered in the affirmative, how would this House react to it?
This afternoon the Secretary of State for Scotland failed to answer a key question which has been put time and time again in the House. How does he justify the fact that Scottish Members will be able to vote on a broad range of matters affecting England whereas English Members will not be able to vote on similar matters affecting Scotland? Had there been an answer to that question, surely the agile minds of the civil servants and Cabinet Ministers would have come up with an answer. They have not come up with an answer because there is not one. It is impossible to explain why 45 million or 50 million people in England should in certain circumstances allow their destinies to be ruled by Scottish Members of Parliament providing the balance for a Government who would not otherwise be in power at all.
That is an unstable element in our constitution which follows inevitably from the clauses of the Bill. It cannot be got round at all. It cannot be got round by saying that Scottish Members will not be allowed to vote on these issues, because then there would be perhaps a Labour Government in the United Kingdom whose majority depended on Scottish Members of Parliament but not having a majority in England and not being able to get their legislation in 80 per cent. of the United Kingdom.
Nor can the problem be solved by saying that the number of Scottish Members will be cut, because then the Scottish people would say "We have not got our fair representation on matters of taxation, defence, foreign affairs and North Sea oil."
It is an insoluble conundrum. In a unitary State, which we are, a permanent advantage cannot be given to one part of the United Kingdom unless correspondingly and necessarily the other parts

of the United Kingdom suffer a disadvantage.
Let the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) be assured that, if the Bill goes through, more help for Scotland will mean less help for Merseyside. There is no way round that. The formula cannot be fiddled with by saying that independent boards will be set up for the English regions, because even that will not secure that Scotland does not get more than her fair share. If a board is set up to decide how much money Scotland should get, the result will be that Scotland will get more than it would otherwise get, and that will mean less for the hon. Gentleman's constituents. In a unitary State everybody should get the same, on the basis of need and not of geography.
I have stated an insoluble conundrum which cannot be got round except on the basis of federalism. Everybody in the House tonight, except possibly the Members of the Liberal Party, will agree that we are not considering federalism tonight and that the people of the country do not want it. Therefore, the Bill contains certain unstable elements which will be a permanent irritation within the United Kingdom.
If the Bill goes through and there is a Scottish Assembly, we know from what the SNP has said that it will use every means it can to cause trouble between England and Scotland. Everything that went right for Scotland would be attributed to the benevolence of the Scottish Assembly. Everything that went wrong for Scotland would be attributed to the shackles that still bound Scotland to Westminster. English hon. Members would say—and, even more, their constituents would say—"We refuse to allow a majority of 71 Scottish MPs to give us a Government that we do not want and to let them legislate on matters in which they have no constitutional responsibility."
There is no way in which one can set up a Scottish Assembly giving a permanent advantage to Scotland that does not mean that other parts of the United Kingdom with far worse problems, such as Merseyside with its unemployment, will be permanently disadvantaged. That means building into the system elements of instability and injustice that in the end


could lead only to the break-up of the United Kingdom. That is why I shall continue to oppose the Bill every inch of the way.

9.6 p.m

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I am conscious that it is invidious to inflict a further speech on the House, particularly as some hon. Members have been sitting here for five hours listening to the same debate, and particularly as I have made six or seven speeches on the matter to the House already. If I have any excuse for inflicting another speech on hon. Members, it is that I can no longer support the conclusion that I reached in my previous speeches. A year ago I should have made exactly the same kind of speech as was made tonight by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). Indeed, I think that I am right in saying that I did make very much the same speech as he made.
I had so often told my colleagues the horror story of what would happen to the Labour Party in Scotland if we failed to get the guillotine that I succeeded in convincing myself that it was true, though, sadly, I failed to convince them. The interesting thing which converted me is that when the guillotine failed the roof did not fall in on the Labour Party in Scotland. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) asked how many letters about the matter we had received. I think that I am right in recollecting that I have not received one letter on devolution since the collapse of the guillotine motion.
Perhaps more to the point, I have canvassed people in my constituency and I have addressed 20 to 30 meetings there and elsewhere in Scotland, and not once has anyone spontaneously asked about devolution. People have certainly asked me about unemployment, wages and prices. I even have had constituents who sincerely asked me about the future of Namibia and the West Bank of the Jordan, but not about the future of devolution for Scotland.
In desperation, in the past month I have gone round my constituency raising the issue at every meeting that I have addressed, I suspect making something of a bore of myself at the meetings of my residents' associations. I found only one

constituent who was prepared to say that he would argue strongly for the survival of the Bill.

Mr. Watt: How can the hon. Gentleman make such an assertion when there has been no opportunity to test the temperature of the political water in Scotland? There have been no by-elections which would give the House an indication whether the roof has fallen in on the Labour Party in Scotland. We look forward to the first possible by-election. It is a matter of urgency, for then we shall see whether the hon. Gentleman can make such an assertion.

Mr. Cook: I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that we had district elections in May this year, the extraordinary feature of which was that the Labour Party did marginally better in Scotland than in England. That suggests that devolution is not the issue that it is cracked up to be. If there were a by-election in Scotland next week, the SNP would fight it, not on devolution, but on unemployment, urban deprivation and prices. The last thing it would mention is the devolution Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) clearly gains a different impression from his constituents. I am not surprised, because in his mind there is no distinction between the case for devolution to Scotland and the case against unemployment and urban deprivation in Scotland. If he sells devolution on the basis that it will help to solve the problems of unemployment and urban deprivation, it is small wonder that his constituents say "Yes, we'll buy that. We'll accept that." But what happens in the long term when they find that it does not cure unemployment and urban deprivation? The hon. Member was frank in pointing out the consequence—that they will demand something more and different. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire made a powerful case against the measure when he pointed out how it would end up.
The fact that I discovered that my constituents do not appear to feel particularly strongly about devolution does not mean that it is necessarily wrong in principle. I have always had reservations on the matter and I am not trying to over-dramatise my conversion. Although I had reservations, I was able


to swallow them because I believed that there was a deep conviction in Scotland in favour of devolution. Once I lost that faith, my reservations loomed up much more sharply.
Hon. Members have referred to two major obstacles. First, what do Scottish Members do in this Chamber after devolution? On a number of occasions before the Committee stage of the Scotland and Wales Bill I tried to raise that question. I raised it in 1974 when my right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister gave me an extraordinary reply. He said there would be plenty for Scottish Members to do because his mail dealt mainly with local authority matters which had nothing to do with the Commons. I raised the question last year in a caucus of Scottish Members on this side of the House when we were preparing our response to the White Paper. I was voted down in my attempt to include a statement on this issue on the ground that if we were to say anything about it it would alarm and upset English hon. Members. In the event, English Members were capable of discovering the issue for themselves. That was, of course, the rock upon which the last Bill foundered.
After devolution, the position of Scottish hon. Members will be untenable. I shall be able to vote on matters concerning English education, for example, but English Members will not be able to vote on Scottish education. What would I say to a constituent who came to me and asked me to discuss education? I should have to tell him that if he wished to discuss Scottish education he must find a member of the Scottish Assembly, but that if he wished to discuss English education I could hear him as I still had some influence and even responsibility for that.
Last spring we had a debate on the closure of some teacher training colleges in Scotland. Five minutes before that debate ended the doors of the Chamber opened and in trooped the sleeping English Members of the Committee to vote down the Government's motion. They voted without knowing what had been discussed, without knowing the names of the colleges concerned, and certainly without knowing how to spell them. They got away with it because it was a procedural motion and was of little consequence.
Let us suppose that after devolution we have a similar situation in which the Labour Government are seeking to close some teacher training colleges in England. The doors of the Chamber would open and in would troop the Scottish Members who would vote for the motion and carry it not knowing the names of the colleges concerned and without a single constituent affected. Would English Members tolerate that? Ministers and others have suggested that that situation is not new and that we have had to put up with the Irish for some time. I remind my hon. Friends that every time the Ulster votes are critical Irish Members come in for criticism.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referred to the statements by the former Prime Minister on this matter. I have with me the chapter and verse of that situation. The Prime Minister said in May 1965:
The House has no jurisdiction over large matters, including two Measures coming before the House this week, so far as Northern Ireland is concerned. I would hope that Northern Ireland Members, who are here, and who are welcomed here, for the duties they have to perform on behalf of the United Kingdom in many matters affecting Northern Ireland, would consider their position in matters where we have no equivalent right in Northern Ireland." —[Official Report, 6th May 1965; Vol. 711, c. 1561.]
In other words, the Prime Minister was saying that the Irish should keep their noses out of non-Irish issues. I urge each hon. Member to ask himself how long he imagines any Leader of the Opposition or Prime Minister would fail to ask the same questions after devolution. It can only be a matter of days, if not hours, before the one who finds himself politically disadvantaged makes that very same statement about Scotland.
I turn to the other major stumbling block, that of finance. I appreciate that the Government have made some move on the financial question since we last debated this subject. I appreciate that we have had a White Paper which suggests that there might be supplementary taxation. But that is not in the Bill. It is a matter for negotiation and, presumably, for future legislation. In the meantime, we shall create an Assembly which will be in the delightful position of having the right to spend public money without the discipline of having to raise a penny of it. It is truly power without responsibility.
We have to be honest about this. The Assembly will inevitably expand public expenditure. There can be no doubt about that. Any new democratic body will find new ways of spending public money. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire and some others who argue in favour of devolution have put the case that there is a need for a searching inquiry into the way in which Scotland's affairs are handled and the way in which its services are dealt with. It is inconceivable that such an inquiry would fail to turn up areas where services must be expanded and where wholly new services must be provided. It will provide the means of spending more money.
I can speak with some authority on this matter because I have written the housing policy for the Labour Party in Scotland on which it intends to fight the Assembly elections. On every page of that policy there is a demand for more money. Which member of the Assembly will stand up and say "Let us not ask for more money for Scottish houses"? Of course no one will do so. Instead they will put it in the bid that will come down here for the block grant.
What position shall we be in? We shall be in the reverse of the Assembly position. We shall get none of the credit for spending public money. We shall get all the odium of collecting it or denying the improvement in the services that would have come from the money if granted. Worst of all, we shall have an acrimonious debate on the issue once a year. We have been very fortunate in Scotland in that we have about a 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. higher public expenditure than the rest of Great Britain. We have got away with that because Parliament was never asked what should be the right level of public expenditure in Scotland. This Bill causes Parliament to address itself to that question once a year. It would be difficult for some of my hon. Friends to come up with the same answer that the Government have found without asking us over the past two decades and it will be even more difficult for them to justify increasing the disparity to meet the additional demands of the Assembly.
I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire again. I hope that he will read Hansard tomorrow. He appeared to give the impression that there

can be no getting away from the fact that Scotland is an area of unique deprivation. I am bound to say that it cannot look quite so self-evident to some of my English colleagues. If we look at the table of earnings, we find that Scottish wages are now higher than those in every region in England except the South-East. If there is a case for higher public expenditure in poorer areas, the case is for it in the South-West and East Anglia, where wage earners now take home a fiver less than in Scotland but whose Members of Parliament are to be asked, once a year, to vote for a block grant which would increase public expenditure in Scotland at the expense of their areas.
In other words, we are devising a system which maximises the temptation to the Assembly to demand more money and makes it most difficult for this Westminster Parliament to grant the money. There will inevitably be a collision course. What will happen in that collision? I invite hon. Members to cast their minds back to the earlier exchanges today between myself and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) in which I was rash enough to point out to him that the Scottish Parliament before 1707, on which he was reflecting with great affection, was controlled by the Earls of Rosebery and the Dukes of Argyll, who manipulated it to their own purposes. What was the response I got from the hon. Member?—that I was insulting Scotland by not standing up for its Parliament. If that is the case with the Parliament of 1707 and if I can no longer criticise the sixth Duke of Argyll, how much more impossible will it be for me to criticise the democratically elected administration in Edinburgh?

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend should not forget the name of the Scottish National Intellectual Society, which is called after Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, who believed in domestic slavery.

Mr. Cook: Fletcher introduced a Bill to the Scottish Parliament which gave power to the landlords to enslave any vagabonds found within their parishes. Fletcher, who did not wish to give up the Scottish Parliament because he saw that such powers would go from it, is the man who is remembered with such affection by the Scots.
It is worth emphasising that the points to which I have drawn attention are not details of the Bill that can be remedied. The Secretary of State said that this matter had been more chewed over than any other piece of legislation that we have considered. I agree with him. If there were a solution to the problems, the Government would have found it. It is unfair to blame them. These problems are inherent in the concept of devolution to one part of the State.
We are in this difficulty because we are not to have Assemblies for the English regions. Because of that, we have the difficulty of what Scottish Members do at Westminster, which to them is a federal Parliament and to English Members is a domestic legislature. It is because of that that we are faced with a stumbling block on finance. Any power to raise revenue in Scotland would create a tax unique to Scotland, which therefore would be politically unacceptable to the Scots and administratively cumbersome to the civil servants. It is because of that that we have the difficulties over reserve powers. If these were part of the panoply of a federal Parliament over a number of subordinate Parliaments it would not be criticised, nor would it be controversial. It is because these proposals apply only to Scotland that they are perceived as discriminatory and an affront to the Scottish people.
We are creating a distinct tier of government for 15 per cent. of the population. It is no wonder that certain fundamental anomalies spring from it.
Where do we go from here? I find myself, as so often in the last four years, in the frustrating position of descending from the lofty heights of constitution-making to grubbing about on the Floor, wondering how to fix the tactics for this week. My answer to the latter question is clear. This week I shall vote for Second Reading and for the guillotine, because I want to kill not the Bill but this issue. I do not think that we can do that in this Chamber.
If we try to do that on Wednesday we shall have the Daily Record and the Scotsman, if it is ever printed again, having screaming headlines criticising what happened here. A week later they will both organise polls from which they will discover that 60 per cent. of the

population repeat those headlines as their settled opinion.
If we are to kill the issue, it can be done only in the referendum to follow the Bill. I have a lively expectation that that can be done. If I am right in reading the mood of my constituents, it will be defeated, not by a majority vote against it, but by the fact that we shall have such an unimpressive proportion voting that no Government in their senses will be able to claim that they have a mandate for major constitutional change.
I am flattered that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) should have referred to my letter to the Lord President and has stated that he intends to follow a similar course of supporting the Bill in order to get the referendum. I understand that he intends to go to Scotland to campaign in the referendum. I applaud his decision and shall welcome him to Scotland. I enter only one caveat. I hope that not all 40-odd English rebels will join him in campaigning against the devolution proposals in the referendum. If that were so, it might not serve the best result that I wish to achieve.
I believe that this is an honourable course. It is tactically sound. I hope that this House will have the good sense to trust the discretion of the Scots and give them the chance to bury this issue once and for all.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. David Price: I find myself in the awkward position of being the first English Back Bencher from the Opposition Benches to speak in this debate.
I hope that the Leader of the House will feel thoroughly ashamed of himself for having allowed only one day for Second Reading. I have a motion on the Order Paper censoring him for that. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that this is an important Bill. I remind him that in 1886 Mr. Gladstone allowed 12 days for the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill. There was a 12-day Second Reading for his Government's second Government of Ireland Bill in 1893. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that on both occasions there was First Reading debate. In 1912 Mr. Asquith allowed seven days for his Government of Ireland Bill, but we are allowed only one day.
The truth is that the Bill is an enormous confidence trick. Perhaps I am like the little boy in the Hans Andersen story, it being necessary to point out that the emperor of devolution has no clothes. A good many of the speeches that we have heard recently—at least the last four—have all been on the same theme.
I am a little surprised by the proposed action of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). He made a strong attack on the Bill, only to announce that he will vote for its Second Reading. Nothing brings more disrepute to Parliament than for a Member to make a strong speech against a Bill only to announce that he will vote for its Second Reading. Nothing brings more disrepute to Parliament than for a Member to make a strong speech against a Bill only to announce that for entirely different reasons he will vote for it. That is a reform of our procedures that we can well do without in legislation.
The Government's declared purpose is to devolve power from the United Kingdom Parliament at Westminster to a new legislative Assembly in Scotland—at least, as I understand it, that is their purpose. I note that no one disagrees with me. I hope that I carry the House with me when I say that the first test whether an elected Assembly has real power or is only a debating society lies in the control of expenditure. If an Executive or a Government have to come to an elected Assembly to receive authorisation to spend money, I believe that that Assembly has the first characteristics of being a Parliament. Under the Bill the Scottish Assembly will not be empowered to vote Supply. It will have the limited power of being able to discuss the distribution of block grants decided in Whitehall and Westminster. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central explained what would be the consequence of this limitation. I agree with everything that he said.
The second test of the power of an elected Assembly lies in its right to control taxation. The executive branch of Government must not be able to raise taxes without the consent of the elected Assembly. In terms of the British Parliament, that principle was clearly stated in the Bill of Rights of 1689, which stated that
Levying money for or to the use of the Crown by the pretence of prerogative without

grant of Parliament for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal.
As Ivor Jennings has observed, so fundamental is this rule that the courts will infer that a power to tax has not been granted unless there is a clear intention to the contrary in an Act of Parliament.
As we all know, Parliament can devolve part of its taxing authority to a subordinate elected authority. We do that in a respect of local government. The taxing powers are conferred within specific areas and according to specific rules laid down from the House. Under the Bill the Scottish Assembly is given no such power to raise taxes. That is no surprise. However, since then the Government have given us their White Paper entitled "Devolution: Financing the Devolved Services", in which they make it quite clear why they do not think it would be right to grant taxing powers to the new Assemblies. Their reasons are formidable. They reject a revenue-based system for Scotland because it
would lead to wide variations between standards of public services in different parts of the country. The poor areas would come off worst.
They then say that it would
be incompatible with the distribution of resources to the different parts of the United Kingdom according to their needs, as the great majority of people consider desirable.
If the Government are right in those reasons, and I suspect that they are, surely it is the strongest reason against devolution of taxation powers from this Parliament. I suggest that if the Government are right in their judgment, the whole exercise of so-called devolution is a sheer confidence trick, because the new Assembly will have fewer taxation powers than the humblest district council within our system of local government. In fact, it will have none. We shall have a situation in which district councils in Scotland will have rating powers but the elected Assembly will have none at all. I need not outline the situation that that will produce.
In parliamentary terms, nothing effective is being devolved, other than a bit of legislation. I say "a bit of legislation" because we all know that when we seek to introduce a Private Member's Bill we are severely restricted in what we can achieve if we do not obtain a Money Resolution from the Government. Legislation without the power of the purse


behind it is largely ineffective. Many hon. Members come to this place with great ideas on legislation, but when they win a place in the Ballot they find that they are greatly restricted in what they can do if they do not have a Money Resolution. We have a position under the present Bill in which the Government are not prepared to give power to vote Supply or taxation to the new Assembly.
We already have a precedent in this House, which many of us have experienced. I have been conned once in my 22 years in this House, and I shall not be conned again. I was conned over the reform of local government following the Redcliffe-Maud and Wheatley Reports, because the eventual legislation dealt only with functions and geography and did not deal with taxation and supply. The situation has been identified since by Frank Layfield and his colleagues, and one hopes that the same mistake will not be made again. Let me remind the House what Frank Layfield said in his report:
Whoever is responsible for spending money should also be responsible for raising it, so that the amount of expenditure is subject to democratic control.
I believe that if we are concerned with the way in which the democratic process is working, we must take the view that we have not got the situation right in seeking to reform local government, and that this has become more and more apparent. Similarly, I do not believe that this House is correctly fulfilling its traditional functions. I look hopefully to our Select Committee on Procedure to try to get our own affairs a little more in order. I praise my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and also the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), who is the Chairman of the General Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee. They are both making brave efforts to try to get the House to modernise its procedures so that we can carry out our traditional functions more efficiently.
Those are the matters to which we should be lending our minds—the reform of our own procedures, and the putting right of local government taxation, because it is still wrong. If we get that situation right, there may be room later to see whether there is need for another tier of government. We may eventually

come to the view that this reform can be carried out only on a federal basis, but before we condemn the unitary system let us try to make it work in two obvious areas where it is creaking at present.
For these reasons, I believe that the Bill does nothing to deal with our immediate problems. Those Labour Members who point to the importance of achieving a more successful economic policy have got at the guts of what is bothering people in Scotland. People turn to the Scottish National Party for comfort because Governments are not succeeding in their policies for Scotland. It is the policies that are wrong, rather than the structure of government.
To go ahead and pass this Bill tonight will be wasting our time here when we have many more important things to do in the interests of the people of the whole of the United Kingdom, including the people of Scotland. It will be a divisive measure, and I very much hope that the House will throw it out.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) said in the course of his speech that what he wanted was Scottish independence within the Common Market. I found that a very interesting phrase indeed, and it drew to my mind what happened recently when President Giscard d'Estaing had with him in Paris the Prime Minister of the Province of Quebec and said publicly in France that he wished to support the independence of Quebec.
We ought to take that into consideration when we are considering the question of an Assembly in Scotland. We should remember that there are old ties between Scotland and France. Are we to see the chief officer, or whatever he will be called, from a Scottish Assembly being invited to Paris and told by the French President "Long live the independence of Scotland"? I do not know whether that will happen, but it has happened already in regard to Quebec.
I think we ought to take note of the phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire when he spoke of independence within the Common Market. It is quite clear that a number of Members in this House see this Bill, as my hon. Friend put it graphically, as the catapult of Scottish independence.


We ought to take careful note of that type of statement.
What does the new Bill do? Is it fundamentally different from the Bill that we had before us previously? The answer to that question is that it is not fundamentally different. There have been changes—changes welcomed by hon. Members, especially on the Conservative Front Bench—but the Bill is basically the same. My right hon. Friends obviously do not want to see the break-up of the United Kingdom, and they see the Bill, as many of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches see it, as the way to stop the break-up of the United Kingdom. They say "If we do not do this, the break-up will come", and they are still saying it, despite the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire had to admit, there is little excitement over this Bill in Scotland.
If there is little excitement in Scotland over the Bill, I can assure him that there is a lot less excitement over it in England. There is, in fact, no excitement whatsoever. But excitement is likely to be whipped up once again just at the moment when interest is waning and enthusiasm is rapidly ebbing away. That is what is happening, and that is the situation facing us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) made an absolutely brilliant speech, and his conclusion was one that I think my hon. Friends should take into consideration. It was that the Government should withdraw the Bill and stop us all from having any embarrassment. There is no enthusiasm for it at all in this House or in the country. Apart from the SNP nobody wants it. [Interruption.] I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Lord President likes it. I do not know many who are enthusiastic about it.
I think that the Bill is irrelevant in one sense but highly dangerous in another, and it is dangerous precisely because it is the first step towards the breaking up of the United Kingdom. I find myself in the greatest difficulty over the Bill. [Interruption.] Of course, some hon. Gentlemen, like many other people, are always willing to give other people advice on what they should do in relation to

their party. They should look after their own. I shall concern myself with my party.
The central flaw in the Bill is that to which a number of right hon. and hon. Members have drawn attention. That is the question of what, precisely, is to be the rôole of Members from outside England coming here to vote on and to decide upon legislation that would apply here but not in the country from which they come. That is the central question. The Government do not have an answer. No one else has an answer. However, it seems to have been brushed aside as though it is irrelevant. It is not irrelevant. It is absolutely fundamental.
The problem to which I return is that devolution was in our manifesto. That was much to my regret, but it was there. No doubt it was also in a great number of election addresses up and down the country.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: It was not in the hon. Gentleman's manifesto.

Mr. Heffer: It was not in my personal manifesto but it was in the manifesto that we flogged around the doors and it was drawn to the attention of my constituents. When I say "flogged" I do not mean that it was sold. Perhaps the documents were sold. I do not know. All I know is that my agent takes care of that sort of thing.
Unfortunately, devolution was supported at the 1976 party conference. I heard the debate there. It was not a very long debate. The votes were overwhelmingly in favour of the proposals. It is true that devolution was in the manifesto first and then went to the conference afterwards. It is usually the other way round, as things should be. Nevertheless, that is what happened.
I must also say that, as a member of our National Executive Committee, I have raised the issue on a number of occasions, as the Lord President knows. I have fought most strenuously, and I have been defeated not once but at least three times on this question in the NEC. Therefore, I have to ask myself, as a democrat, whether I accept the views without agreeing with them and reserving my position to fight to change them within my party. I do not always like decisions that are taken, but as long as


we have a democratic party and can fight to change those decisions, I can do so. We do not have a so-called democratic, centralist organisation. We have democracy.
I shall continue to oppose this devolutionary process because of the dangers in it. But how am I to do it? My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central might not want 40 Members from across the border going up to explain how Members sitting for some English seats feel about it. But if my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is willing to have me in his constituency, I am prepared to go and to argue—if it ever gets to the referendum stage—as strongly as I possibly can on a Socialist basis to the Scottish working class movement why I think they should oppose this legislation being put into operation.
There is a danger with regard to referendums. I fear that the people of Scotland, rather than voting on the legislation, might be asked to vote for James Callaghan, Prime Minister. That is the danger. I hope that we shall get an assurance from the Government and from the party, in particular, that when the referendum comes we shall not be arguing on that basis because what killed the Common Market argument was the fact that the leaders of the three main parties all campaigned for it. When ordinary people expressed the view that it was marvellous, who was I to say that it was not? Luckily, 8 million of them said it was not.
With regard to the percentage of the vote, shall we have a situation where perhaps only 40 per cent. vote, 51 per cent. of that total agree and the legislation is passed? I trust not. I hope that if it is possible we shall write into the Bill a clear percentage. That must obviously be done before we can possibly agree to legislation of this kind.
I find myself in this awful situation. We have been put into that situation by the Government and by the way in which the matter was handled and accepted by party conference. Many of my colleagues in this House are in exactly the same position. Perhaps I am in a slightly more difficult position because I am a member of my party's Executive. But I do not change one word of my opposition to this

concept. I think that it is serious and dangerous for this country.
We have a long way to go before the issue ever gets to the referendum stage. I do not even know whether I shall vote for the Bill. Even if I do, there is still the Third Reading and there is still the referendum. Incidentally, I could almost forgive the other place if on this one occasion—[Interruption]. Perhaps their last act of any importance will be with regard to this question. Quite seriously I ask my Government, even at this stage, to take into consideration the obvious lack of enthusiasm and support on this side of the House and to consider, even if the Second Reading is carried and we go into the various Committee stages—

Mr. Abse: How can my hon. Friend possibly expect to have any credibility in a campaign on a referendum against the Bill if, on the principle of the Bill, which is the Second Reading, he goes into the Division Lobby to support the Bill?

Mr. Heffer: Because some of us believe in our party and because we accept that the Bill is promised in the manifesto. I have always argued in this House in favour of the manifesto. When, for example, some people wanted to stop steel nationalisation, I was one of the first to argue at that time that it was in the manifesto. I ask my hon. Friend to take that into consideration.
We all have divided loyalties. This is a very difficult speech for me to make. Credibility also means loyalty to one's party and to the movement. I think that the Government are totally wrong. I hope that we can stop this Bill in a democratic manner. But I also believe that it is my job and my responsibility within the party, holding the position that I do, to help to sustain the Government while urging them to change their minds.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: May I tell the House that both Front Benches have agreed that they will not be seeking to catch my eye for the winding-up until 20 minutes past 10? That allows me roughly another half hour. If we can have 10-minute speeches, it will enable some other hon. Members to get in who otherwise will fail to do so.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) advised us to look at the reserve powers of the Scottish Assembly, which are set out on pages 48 and 49 of the Bill. I have done so. They go from Group 1, health, through social welfare, education, housing, local government, land use, and so on, and I notice that at Group 17 we have fire services and fire precautions.
At 3.30 tomorrow, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) is to open a debate on fire services and fire precautions. It is perhaps ironical to consider that, if this Bill were already law, he would of course be able to refer to the situation in England but not to the situation in his own constituency or in Scotland, because that would be reserved to the Assembly in Scotland. The Member for Central Ayrshire in the Assembly in Scotland would tell the hon. Gentleman that he was poaching and that it had nothing to do with him. That points to the absurdity of what is now known as the West Lothian question, that a Scottish Member could raise in this House all the matters relating to the English fire services and fire precautions, but nothing to do with Scotland.
The West Lothian question is usually posed in that form, and never gets an answer. I should like to pose it in a slightly different form, which is that, speaking roughly, if this Bill becomes law someone residing in Scotland will have the equivalent of two votes, someone residing in Wales will have the equivalent of one and a half votes, someone residing in England will have one vote, and, as at present, someone resident in Ulster will have half a vote.
That position has been defended by the Minister of State, who is to reply. He said in one of our previous debates that we should not have a crude uniformity about these matters; we should have richness and diversity. He said that it was absurd to treat everyone exactly the same, because we thrive on diversity. He waxed lyrical on the subject.
While the hon. Gentleman was speaking previously in that debate, I asked myself "Where have I heard this argument before? Where have I read this argument before?" Of course, it was precisely the argument raised by the

Duke of Wellington and the high Tories against the great Reform Bill. It was the argument that it was quite unnecessary that a vote in the constituency of Westminster should have the same value as a vote in Old Sarum, that it was in the richness and diversity of the voting arrangements that the true glory of the House of Commons lay. That argument was again advanced by Disraeli on the great occasion of the "fancy franchise".
So the Minister of State is in a very high Tory tradition if he says that the concept of one man, one vote is a drab, uniform concept, that we must get away from it, and that there is no need whatever to complain because the Scots are to have two votes while the English are to have one, the Welsh one and a half and the Ulstermen only a half. If that is the best answer the Government can give to this version of the West Lothian question, it is obviously insufficient in the second half of the twentieth century. I hope that if they can they will think of a better argument.
It has been suggested that the way to get over this difficulty is to adopt a convention, a sort of self-denying ordinance of the Scottish Members not to speak or vote on English questions. Rather as you, Mr. Speaker, and your deputies, by unbreakable tradition, do not vote, so it is hoped that by some convention the Scottish and Welsh Members should not vote on English questions. No suggestion has come from the Government of such an offer, no suggestion that such a convention should be given.
Of course, there are two strong objections to it. The first one is that the Scottish and Welsh Members in this House would have practically nothing to do, because they could not discuss Scottish matters, they could not discuss Welsh matters, and they could not discuss English matters either, nor vote on them. They would be restricted to Namibia and Anguilla and such matters, and so they would be earning very easy money.
The second and, I suspect, real objection is that it would go against the whole point of this exercise. Everyone knows that from the start, when the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) took this matter up, the whole purpose of the exercise was that Labour Scottish Members should go on voting, that there


should be more of them, and that they should go on voting. It was because he feared that there would not be enough Labour Scottish Members if he did not do something about it that the whole exercise was started. Everyone who knows anything knows that.
If that is so, it seems to me that the chorus of strictures, some of them very high-minded—one cannot but be impressed by the speeches, if not by the consequential votes—about the dangers of this course and about the need to produce a Bill which is justifiable, valid and desirable in itself, whatever its other merits or demerits may be, must make some impact at least on the Minister of State. He has a great reputation on these matters. So does the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Will the Minister of State answer the West Lothian question, either in the form posed by the right hon. Member for Down, South, or by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), or in the more refined form in which I have put it—namely, the different values of the different votes according to which geographical kingdom one happens to be sitting it? Unless he can answer that, I do not believe that anyone can, and if no one can, the Bill must go.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I listened with great sympathy to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer). I have not had the same agony of mind over my decisions on the Bill, but I have thought hard about it and, having travelled a rather different road, arrived at the same conclusion. My hon. Friend clearly presented to the House the serious conflicts of principle which he felt were involved in his arriving at a decision. I do not feel, from my position as someone who abstained—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Scotland Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Tinn.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Having abstained on the Second Reading on the Scotland and Wales Bill and voted against the

guillotine motion on it, I have, naturally, devoted a great deal of serious thought to my approach to the present Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about pressure?"] No, it is not a matter of pressure. No doubt, hon. Members opposite will delude themselves, but it has not been a matter of pressure. It is a matter of being anxious to ensure that what we do as Members of Parliament are the right things to be done. My reservations in opposition to the Scotland and Wales Bill and my reservations now—I certainly have reservations about this Bill—are intellectual. I feel that, on balance, it would be preferable if we did not have the Bill. It would be preferable if we did not have the situation created by a minority, possibly a small minority, in Scotland where there is pressure for a measure of this kind.
I listened with great respect and interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), who had arrived at the same decision as I have reached, though by a different course. Initially, my hon. Friend had been in favour of the measure, and he has now come to the view that on balance, it is probably undesirable but that the best thing to do is to accept that Westminster is not the best place to defeat it. I accept that there is pressure in Scotland for a measure of this kind. I do not know how strong it is. No one on either side of the House knows how strong it is. We have not had a referendum, which is the only means of finding out just how strong that pressure is. I should have preferred something on the lines of a Second Reading referendum saying "Do you want a Bill of this kind?"—I know that it would cost £2 million, but so what?—and then, if necessary, assuming that the first referendum showed that there was a majority for the principle, a Third Reading referendum saying "Here is the Bill. Do you approve of what we have done?" But that is not what we are to do.
If we had had such a referendum and we knew that there was strong pressure in Scotland for a Bill on these lines, I do not think that many of my hon. Friends who have reservations would have objected. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) would still have resisted it, but most hon. Members who


have reservations about the present Bill would have accepted the results of a referendum which showed that, with 65 per cent. or 70 per cent. of the Scottish people voting, the overwhelming majority wanted a measure of this kind. We should all have accepted it, I think. We do not yet know whether that is the case, but we have to accept, if only on the evidence of the polls conducted by the Scotsman, that there is pressure for a Bill of this kind.
I accept also that if there is a real determinaion on the part of Scotland to establish an Assembly of some kind, it is not for Westminster to say "No, you will not be able to have it." We cannot do that. The only result of Westminster's refusing to pass a measure for which there was a strong demand in Scotland if such exists—would be to hasten the pace towards total separation. If we persist in refusing it, we shall be heading towards real confrontation.

Mr. Pym: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on this thought? What is one to make of Labour Member after Labour Member saying that he is totally in disagreement with the Bill, yet he will, notwithstanding that, support it here and defeat it on the referendum? What is the logic and morality of that? What is one to make of it? Where is the conviction, where is the integrity of being for it here and against it in Scotland? What does it all add up to?

Mr. Douglas-Mann: If I may adopt the right hon. Gentleman's own words when he was interrupted on two occasions in his speech, if he will listen he will hear the point that I seek to make. Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I believe that if there is a strong majority in Scotland in favour of the Bill, there is nothing that we as English, Welsh or Ulster Members should do. We can do it, but there is nothing that we should do to prevent the will of a body of Scottish people saying "We are determined to have an Assembly on these lines." It would be wrong for us, while trying to retain the Union, to say "No, we have the institutions, and you will keep them as they are, like it or lump it".

Mr. Pym: Will the hon. Gentleman go on from that logically to say that if the

Bill were enacted it would not be right for Members representing Scottish seats to frustrate the obvious wish of the English if that happened to contradict the will of the Government of the day? That seems to be an entirely logical conclusion.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: With respect, no. It is true that the consequence of the Bill will be to force upon us further constitutional changes. The effect of the Bill will inevitably be that we shall have to create new provisions for dealing with purely English matters. That might be an English Grand Committee, or some form of English Assembly, but if that is what the Scottish people are determined is to be the price of remaining in the Union—I do not know whether it is—we have to accept it. We cannot force Scotland to stay in on our terms. If there is that determination, we have to accept that that is the price for a measure of this kind, but I am unhappy about it.
The principal matter is the financial one. It seems likely—

Mr. George Cunningham: Does not my hon. Friend think that there is a distinction to be made? If the people of Scotland want independence, they are entitled to have it without interference from us. Does not my hon. Friend have some hesitation in saying that if the Scottish people want devolution we have to change entirely the governmental arrangements for 45 million Englishmen to accommodate a devolution system which is, in essence, bound to lead to independence?

Mr. Douglas-Mann: We have discussed this on many occasions. I think that it is legitimate for Scotland to say "If you want us to stay in the Union"—and we do—" we want it organised in this way". If the people of Scotland are determined on that, I shall accept it, and the House should accept it, but I do not know whether they are so firmly determined on it that it is necessary to make these fundamental constitutional changes.
Some of the changes will be potential time bombs within our constitution. The biggest one is finance. What will we do when the Scottish Executive overspends, when it gets into the situation of New York? How shall we deal with that


situation? There is an easy fiscal answer, but the political answer is much more difficult.
I accept that we can overcome these problems if it is necessary to retain the Union. Many of my Scottish friends, on both sides of the House and outside it, have assured me that this measure is vital. Perhaps it is, but let us test it. The Lord President of the Council rejected the proposal of a pre-legislative referendum. I am sorry about it, but that is water under the bridge. I ask him to assure the House before Wednesday night that, prior to this legislation being carried into effect, there will be a referendum that is not just a test of the majority of those who bother to vote. It is noticeable that there has been a thin attendance this afternoon, even of members of the SNP, and that there are no queues in St. Stephen's Hall. There is not the degree of enthusiasm for and involvement in this issue that there was a year ago.
My right hon. Friend should say that if, at the referendum, there is less than a 50 per cent. vote, and less than a 5 per cent. majority, this legislation will not be carried into effect. My right hon. Friend has a discretion under Clause 82. I shall vote for the Second Reading of the Bill because that is the only means of testing the matter, but I hope that before the vote on Wednesday night my right hon. Friend will tell us how he will interpret the discretion that he has under Clause 82 about whether the Bill should be repealed. I hope that there will be an amendment that will write into the statute the requirement that there must be an adequate majority vote in the referendum. I do not ask him to promise to accept such all amendment, but before we deal with the guillotine motion I want to know how he contemplates that his discretion will be exercised. His assurance on that is crucial.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: Whenever I try to consider the Government's motivation in bringing forward these proposals, I am caused to remember the bishop's prayer in "Murder in the Cathedral" by T. S. Eliot—
The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason.
I should like to believe that the Government, in bringing forward proposals for

constitutional reform, are motivated by a genuine desire to improve the business and quality of government.
Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, this has not been a continuing process. Although in 1945 the abour Party did believe in Home Rule, no reference to it appeared in Labour Party policy documents that the public were allowed to see for 30 years. It was no coincidence that the Labour Party became reconverted to it between February and October 1974.
We know also, that the fact that Scotland is to be offered a greater degree of devolution that Wales arises because of the different political pattern in Scotland from that in Wales. We know, equally, that the fact that the Government had decided that Northern Ireland, which has been represented by 12 members for the past 50 years, now deserves to have a greater number of Members arises from the altered political circumstances. We know that the decision to set up subsidiary boards of the National Enterprise Board in the North-East and North-West was not a decision suddenly arrived at for industrial considerations without any reference to the context of devolution for Scotland and for Wales.
However, unfortunately, it demeans the whole constitutional debate. If the Government believe, as I believe and as some Members on the Government side believe, that there is an urgent need for constitutional reform, the matter must be approached not on the basis of saving seats or winning seats, not on the basis of buying or selling seats, but on the genuine basis of improving the government of the whole of the United Kingdom.
Since we last debated this matter there has been a convergence, which has become clear in virtually all the speeches that have been made today. It is the belief that the fundamental problem to be resolved is not what is in the Bill but what is not included either in the Scotland Bill or in the Wales Bill—in other words, a decision as to the future of this House if devolution is to be enacted.
Most of the speeches have concentrated on the undoubted iniquity of Scottish Members being allowed to vote on English legislation. However, the problem goes beyond that. We must ask ourselves the question: how will this House


respond if such a situation should arise? It has been said again and again that it will be intolerable for English Members to live with such a state of affairs for many years. How, then, will they respond to that intolerable situation?
Whichever way they respond, we will end up with a worse situation than the one we have now. They will either insist on second-rate Scottish Members entitled to vote only on certain issues, which will be an unsatisfactory situation, or there will be an overwhelming demand, however illogical, for a reduction in Scottish representation in the House. It will be only a matter of time before the Secretary of State ceases to exist as a separate office. Scotland will have its Assembly and its Executive. Wales will have its Assembly and its Executive. It will be only a matter of time before Northern Ireland will get a devolved form of government, and this House of Commons, instead of being the Parliament of the United Kingdom, will become an English Parliament with added functions for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
That, clearly, is the worst of all possible solutions because if the British Parliament becomes an English House of Commons, the illogical arguments in favour of independence advanced by the Scottish National Party would become very powerful.
The answer is twofold. There is a respectable argument for the status quo or for some minor improvements thereto. Equally, there is a powerful argument that, if constitutional reform is necessary, it must be the British constitution that is reformed, that the government of the whole United Kingdom must be altered to meet that requirement.
I therefore agree with the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) that we have a situation in which the people of Scotland—I do not know for certain that this is so—will remain in the Union only if certain constitutional changes are made. This does not necessarily mean that the English must accept that the government of England must change. What they might have to consider is that they have a choice. They must say to the Scots either "We are satisfied with the House of

Commons in its present form for England, and if you are not satisfied you must go your own way", or, as the only possible alternative to that proposition, that if the only way of keeping Scotland within the Union is to accept the fundamental reform of the whole British constitution, that is a price that they might be willing to pay.
There is no third course that has any real likelihood of being stable. What the Government offer is a partisan response to a temporary political problem. It may help to deal with that political problem in the short term, but, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, it cannot be a solution to the problems of the United Kingdom for three out of the four countries of a unitary State to have a devolved system of government while the fourth, with 80 per cent. of the population, has no such system. That cannot work, and cannot hope to work.
It is clear that the people of England do not wish to be carved up into several regions, and there is no reason why they should, but if the constitutional reform of the government of the United Kingdom becomes a price that must be paid to preserve the United Kingdom, the possibility of an all-England Assembly in some form or other will have to be considered. It could be formed in many different ways, but the important point, the principle, that must be accepted is that all who consider themselves to be unionist—whether in the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party or the Ulster Unionists—all of us who share the desire to preserve the Union, must insist that this House does not become an English Parliament. It must be a British Parliament as long as the Union exists, and for it to be a British Parliament it must have roughly comparable powers and responsibilities for the four countries of the Union. That is the main criterion that we must insist on. If we insist on that but no other, we shall not go too far wrong.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), who will know that we hope to begin the winding-up speeches at 10.20 p.m.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: This is a perfect example of shortage of time, in a poorly attended House, on a major constitutional matter. It reinforces the concern that many of us feel about the haste with which the Bill is being forced through the House.
I opposed the Bill from the beginning, on the ground that it was constitutionally wrong. I have never taken the view that it is a matter between the North of England and Scotland, or between Merseyside and Scotland or anywhere else. It is a matter of constitutional importance, and it is of the essence that the House should have time to argue it out without the guillotine and without pressure from the Executive.
I have listened to the debate, but I apologise for my earlier absence. [Interruption.] It is right that a Member should apologise for his earlier absence. Some do not. I have been sitting here since 8.30 p.m. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I was here between 3.30 p.m. and 4.30 p.m. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have had meetings inside the House between then and the time I returned to the Chamber.
The point I want to make is that I have listened to some hon. Members on the Labour Benches who have appalled me. They were opposed to the Bill at the beginning. I have read the Bill before us, and I can say that there is no fundamental difference between this and the previous Bill. I cannot accept that where a major principle is involved I should listen without comment to excuses, understandable though they may be. I am not impressed. It is a sad day when I must listen to hon. Members saying "I shall vote for the Bill tonight, but I shall go to Scotland and fight against it later on."
More than that, when there is a lessening of interest in devolution in Scotland and when there is very little interest in

it in the United Kingdom as a whole, I am appalled that the Executive should consider it right that we should pass a Bill and then tell the people of Scotland "We shall have a referendum." I cannot understand that. In any case, my experience of the Common Market referendum leads me to distrust any referendum where the Executive wants its will to prevail.
Earlier this week I was asked "What are your views on the Bill?" I had no hesitation in saying "There is no reason for my views to have changed." I shall vote against the Second Reading tonight. I shall vote against the Second Reading of the Wales Bill tomorrow. I shall vote against the guillotine. I shall be able to go to my constituents and say that I have been honest in my convictions.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: But not honest with the Labour Party.

Mr. Leadbitter: If this Bill should ever become an Act and if the referendum should, by one method or another, result in there being a Scottish or Welsh Assembly, that will be the time when the Labour Party will have to ask itself what its future is to be. The Kilbrandon Report contains a definite recommendation that the number of Scottish Members of this House should be reduced.
If Scottish Members of the Labour Party think that for one moment I, as an English Member of Parliament, shall tolerate their coming here and determining what happens in my constituency when I can say nothing about Scotland, they have another think coming.
The House should take courage. Those who warn about the terrible consequences of the Bill might not be surprised if one day English Members become sick and tired of it all and say "If you want a separate Assembly with independence you cannot come here and determine what happens in England."

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) apologised for not being in the Chamber all day. If he had been here he would have been appalled and shocked at some of the reasons given for supporting the Bill. Those of us who have been here all day would agree that although we have heard many arguments, there has been hardly any enthusiasm for the Bill. Almost no one has argued that the Bill would do any good for Scotland, England or the United Kingdom.
The only sign of enthusiasm came from the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) and members of the SNP. They argued not that the Bill would do good, not that it would help to improve the constitution, but that inevitably it would be a catapult towards independence—that it would be the "first step on the road", as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) honestly said. They did not argue that the Bill would do good but they said that it would do something that the Government say that they are trying to prevent.
The right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) and his colleagues say that we must do something, even though this might be a bad Bill. He said that he had the felling that something would happen if we did not do something with Scotland. That is not an argument for introducing a major constitutional change which could break the Union.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) said that he had changed his mind. He said that he had found that the enthusiasm that he once had was no longer there. He put forward a devastating case against the Bill. He said what a disaster it would be but that he was, unfortunately, going to vote for it. The hon. Member should examine himself. He said that he was going to vote for the Bill because if Parliament rejected it that action would be misinterpreted by some newspapers such as The Scotsman and that the SNP would abuse the situation. He said that we should kill the Bill for ever in a referendum. He said that it is much better to do that in a referendum than to do it here.
I ask him whether there is not a danger of his actions being misinterpreted. Is

he not aware of what these one or two newspapers will say about the number of Scottish Members who voted for the Bill? His vote will be used as part of the argument to support this appalling measure. If he thinks that the Bill is as wrong and as dangerous as he has said, it is difficult to understand his justification for voting. for it.
We had the same argument from the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Mr. Heffer). He put forward two strange arguments. First, he said that he would campaign against the Bill in the referendum in Scotland but would have to vote for it because it was in the manifesto and second—unusually for him—he said that he would vote for it in the knowledge that the House of Lords might stop it.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman should listen carefully to what I say. I did not say that I would vote for the Bill. I said that I had not yet made up my mind.

Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I say to him what I said to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. It is wrong that a Bill which they consider to be dangerous and damaging should be put before the people of Scotland. Surely this is an insulting thing to do and an extravagant waste of public money, involving, as it does, 2½ million. Surely it is wrong to ask the people of Scotland to vote on something which both hon. Members think is entirely wrong.
In fairness to the hon. Member for Walton, the Minister of State to the Privy Council Office should at least answer one question. The hon. Member for Walton put forward the fair point about referendum being confused with other things in some cases. Will the Minister of State give hon. Members the clear assurance that, should there be a referendum in the event that the Bill goes through Parliament, it will be a clear and separate campaign, not mixed up with a General Election campaign taking place at the same time? The Minister of State is laughing but he has laughed at many things. At least let us have a clear answer on this.

Mr. John Smith: Since the hon. Gentleman mentions humour, it would


be appropriate for me to ask him whether the Scottish Assembly is such a bad thing and so expensively bureaucratic. He said in a pamphlet issued in October 1974:
We will establish a Scottish Assembly and ensure decision-making is removed from London. There will be a separate Scottish Budget.

Mr. Taylor: There is no question of my arguing against the principle of devolution. We are talking about this Bill. However, if the Minister of State wishes to end a debate of this constitutional importance by swapping quotes, let me remind him of what was said on 19th August 1974 in The Scotsman. It was reported:
Mr. John Smith, M.P. for North Lanark, claimed that members of the party who were pressing for devolution to a Scottish Government without the loss of the office of the Secretary of State and a reduction in the number of M.P.s at Westminster were being dishonest.
Does he still say that the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Lord President and all the others who are telling us that we can have devolution without losing our Secretary of State and without having a reduction in representation are being dishonest? Will he stand up and say that anyone who supports devolution believing that there can be a Secretary of State for Scotland and 71 Scottish Members is being dishonest? We are arguing the case against the Bill.
The fifth argument advanced by some hon. Members is that this is a bad Bill but they must vote for it because people want it so intensely that we cannot wait to try to get it right. This argument was used by some hon. Members who said "We know that it is a rubbishy Bill and will cost a lot of money but we have to do something because the people of Scotland are desperate for it." This is a matter of judgment. We can say only what we ourselves feel and what we consider to be the feeling of the people of Scotland. However, does the Leader of the House remember when he was arguing that we should pass the Scotland and Wales Bill, which was rejected? He said that unless the House passed it there was the danger of Ulster-type violence in Scotland. I do not deny that there has been violence in Scotland—there has been plenty of it—but surely the Minister of State will not say that it can be attributed to the defeat

of the devolution Bill in the previous Session.
There have been arguments about federalism. It is true that there are more in the House who are attracted to federalism. It is logical, clear and precise. There is no doubt that there are more generally who are beginning to think seriously about federalism, but we are not talking about that tonight. There may be a case for having a debate and a Bill on federalism, or a White Paper and a discussion, but, the Bill is not about federalism. Those who have not been in the Chamber throughout the debate should ask themselves where are the supporters of the Bill who say that it will improve the government of the United Kingdom and of Scotland?"
The first question that we must ask stems from the argument of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), who said that one of the reasons for voting for the Bill is that it has been improved. I accept that there have been changes. However, I honestly advise the House to think carefully whether all the changes have been for the better and whether they are as major as the hon. Gentleman considers them to be.
One change is that we now face an immediate guillotine. We are told that it will be brought forward on Wednesday. It will serve to stifle discussion. I shall make one more quotation. It comes from the splendid occasion when I cheered the Leader of the House because he was saying the right thing. He said:
The guillotine is the last resort of a Government who know that they cannot get the full-hearted consent of Parliament but are determined to have their way in any case."—[Official Report, 2nd May 1972; Vol. 836, c. 235.]
There have been a number of changes. One example is that we have the assurance that we shall have a four-year budget for the Assembly. Bearing in mind what the hon. Member for Inverness has seen over the past two years in the House, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer bringing forward 12 Budgets in three years involving 12 changes in economic policy, does he think that the Government will agree on a budget for Scotland for four years while in every other part of the United Kingdom we shall see regular changes in economic policy?
If we are to have a detailed argument put before the House every year to justify the block grant, does the hon. Gentleman think that this will necessarily be in Scotland's best interests? As we all know, expenditure per head of population in Scotland is about 20 per cent. more than in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is because of Scotland's special problems and needs. Like a good Scot, I shall continue to ask for more whenever that is appropriate. I ask the Minister of State whether it is necessarily a good thing that every year, with all the special problems arising from the West Lothian question, that there should be argument in the House to justify Scotland having at least 20 per cent. more per head of the population.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: rose—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: No, I shall not give way. I have only a short time.
The hon. Member for Inverness said that we shall have the power to fix teacher's salaries in Scotland. I was surprised about that. Pay policies have been introduced by the Leader of the House and others who used to argue against them. I wrote to the Leader of the House to ask him how the system will work. I asked him whether the Scottish Assembly would be free to fix the salaries of Scottish teachers even if the national pay policy said that we should not. The answer was that a clause would be written into the Bill stating that a Scottish Assembly would have regard to national pay policy.
I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman again to ask what would happen if the Scottish Assembly did not have regard to the policy. The right hon. Gentleman gave me a very nice answer. He wrote:
As far as your second point is concerned, we anticipate that any difference of opinion between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Assembly will normally be settled by consultation but the Government will also be in a position to influence a settlement through the negotiation of the block fund.
In other words, we shall have the same position as exists in respect of rents and local authorities—namely the attitude "If you do not behave yourself, you will be affected through the block fund". Action of that type will inevitably lead to clashes.
I believe that we now have a choice which the Opposition are putting to the House. It is a choice between voting for a bad Bill, a Bill which everybody has admitted is bad, and of then putting it to the people of Scotland, and the opportunity of voting for our amendment. We should then be saying "Instead of voting for this bad Bill, let us try to deal with some of the problems we all know exist".
We should certainly seek to ensure that any scheme does not add to the cost of government. This Bill will involve the payment of £13 million in salaries—in a country where we are cutting back on home helps and school patrol attendants. We must also make sure that we do not add to the complexity of government. Those who argue that we should reduce the tiers of government know that it is not an easy matter. But if we go ahead with the Bill in its present form, Scotland will be in danger of becoming the most over-governed country in the world.
We also want to make sure that any scheme arising out of the constitutional conference would give a real and meaningful rôle to Westminster Members of Parliament coming here from Scotland. The whole House has accepted that it would be intolerable if Scottish Members of Parliament were to come down here to vote on essentially English education, English housing and English planning if those same Members had no say in such matters affecting their own country.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that that is what happens here at Westminster? The Scottish people are governed by Governments from England. If the Conservatives are ever elected again, the Scottish people would be governed, by a Conservative Government which they might not want.

Mr. Taylor: We happen to believe, as most people believe, that we are a united kingdom. One of the reasons for this monstrous Bill arises from the panic into which the Government have been thrown because of their feeling that the Labour Party will be destroyed if nothing is done about the situation. But evidence is showing that the SNP has the ability to destroy itself, as is certainly evident from its policies.
I repeat that in any scheme there must be a meaningful role for Westminster


Members from Scotland. There is no easy answer, although the hon. Member for Inverness appeared to suggest there was. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) asked why we could not adopt the simple solution of having English Members voting on English affairs and Scottish Members on Scottish affairs, and then allowing us all to come together to discuss Mozambique and defence. That suggestion, too, is not so easy as it appears. If we had such a situation, the inevitable consequence on some occasions would be to have a national United Kingdom Government of one party with power only to implement domestic policy in Wales. [Hon. Members: "Oh."]
Let us take the present political scene. We may see a new Scottish Assembly dominated by Conservatives and a few nationalists, in England a Conservative majority, in Wales a Labour majority, and in Ulster the present situation. In that situation one would have a national Government elected by the House of Commons as a whole with power to implement housing, educational, water and planning policy only in Wales. What a constitutional nonsense that would be. Let us not go ahead with it.
We must be clear about the demarcation between the powers of an Assembly and of the Westminster Government. These are not clear, as the Minister of State will admit. He has only to examine Clauses 36 and 37 of the Bill to see the dilemma. The Secretary of State can report any Bill or any executive act to the House of Commons for it to be overturned if he thinks it interferes directly or indirectly with reserve functions. If it were indirectly or directly to interfere in economic affairs or employment matters, it would cover a wide field indeed. There is also concurrent legislation whereby the Government's power from Westminster to impose any form of legislation at all times is not affected.
There are many other things I could say but I promised to complete my remarks by 10.40 p.m.
Those who have listened to the debate—and not all hon. Members have—and others will be well aware that we are in danger of perpetrating a major parliamentary disaster by approving a Bill which few people have any belief would improve the government of Scotland, and

which I think most believe in their hearts would do a great deal of damage. We are in danger of approving a major constitutional change without having resolved the most obvious dangers and weaknesses which inevitably stem from trying to arrive at this change. Far from us being given scope and freedom to resolve these things in Committee, we have been told that our discussion on this will be stifled by a guillotine measure.
This is not an ordinary Bill, the kind of Bill which we can change or repeal or amend next year if we find that we have got it wrong. It is a major constitutional measure which will be irreversible unless we have the sense to found it on firm foundations with adequate safeguards.
In recommending the amendment, therefore, and the rejection of the Bill, we do not seek in any way a vote against the principle of devolution—[Interruption.]—not in any way a vote against parliamentary reform, and not a vote against constitutional change. We simply seek to try to persuade Parliament against the nonsense of committing an irreversible blunder—a blunder which I believe would do great damage to Scotland, which would do great damage to the rest of the United Kingdom and which undoubtedly would damage the Union itself.

10.42 p.m.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): I think that the most surprising part of the speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), perhaps even to himself, was the last sentence of it. It took us back to the speech by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), who, in his usual careful way, tried to explain what Conservative policy was on devolution. I gathered from his speech that the Conservatives were generally in favour of the principle but thought that the way in which the matter should be approached was to get an all-party consensus on the matter, that somehow the Government had been failing in the past in not seeking such a consensus, and that if a constitutional commission were called it could within six months devise a workable, meaningful scheme, it would not have to he some make-believe Assembly—because the right hon. Gentleman said that it must be of real help to Scotland; otherwise it would not be worth doing.
Then, with a roll of drums, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would be especially frank about devolution—even about his own party. It then emerged that he was talking of a speech that he had made at St. Andrew's University, where he had said that there should be an Assembly. He did not say in his speech that it was to be directly elected, but in "The Right Approach" it says "directly elected", and I imagine that all Conservative speeches are to be construed to make sense out of "The Right Approach." I think we must assume, therefore, that it would be a directly elected Assembly.
That Assembly which the right hon. Gentleman proposed. and which I imagine he would advance to this constitutional commission, would call to account in Scotland the powerful Scottish executive that Scotland already has, investigate and monitor the administrative decisions of the Civil Service, question the policies and decisions of public bodies and agencies, the health service and nationalised industries in Scotland, including electricity, gas and railways, press Scottish opinions, views and needs on the United Kingdom Government when taking decisions affecting Scotland, be involved in considering Scottish legislation, preserve and strengthen the independence of Scottish institutions—and so on in this vein.
What is that all about? One would have thought that was the speech of someone who is committed—as I think perhaps the right hon. Gentleman personally is—to a movement and change of government in this country to give much more control over legislative and executive functions to people in Scotland over Scottish affairs. But, no, the right hon. Gentleman is a prisoner of his shadow Cabinet and of his party's aversion to devolution, and he cannot go that far.
Despite these marvellous powers, the Assembly is to have no legislative or executive powers whatsoever. Therefore, I do not think that the Conservatives would come to a constitutional commission with much in the way of constructive ideas.
Let me rebut the charge that the Government have been unwilling to listen to other views on this matter. It is worth bearing in mind that every political party

in the United Kingdom except the Conservative Party gave evidence to the Kilbrandon Commission. On our 1974 consultative document, which has figured in the right hon. Gentleman's speech from time to time, the Conservative submitted no coments. On the 1975 White Paper, although specifically invited to do so, they sent a letter saying that it was not their practice to comment on White Papers of this kind. On the 1976 consultative document on England the Conservative Party was again specifically invited to comment. There was a reply from Lord Thorneycroft's office which said
we have considered your suggestion carefully but the Conservative Party organisation does not normally give evidence or comments in such instances and Lord Thorneycroft has asked me to say that he does not wish to depart from our normal practice.
The Conservative Front Bench nod in agreement. It is not for me to give them advice on the practice they should follow, but I think it is for me to rebut any suggestion that there has been a lack of willingness to consult other people or that the Conservative Party is a party that seeks consensus on these matters—which is the meaning behind the amendment, which is dignified by the adjective "reasoned" in some comments, that the Conservatives have put down today.

Mr. Pym: Will the hon. Gentleman then say why, so categorically, he and his right hon. Friend the Lord President resisted every overture and approach that I made to have a constitutional conference of the sort I have described? Is not that a surprising reluctance on his part, if an overture was made and he rejected it? How does he explain that?

Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well the terms of the proposed Select Committee that he put forward to consider all the alternatives considered in the June 1974 consultative document, including other alternatives and including federalism. Any change in the constitution was to be considered, and all was to be done within six months. He knows as well as I do that 75 per cent. of the Conservative Party is opposed to devolution in principle. The Opposition Front Bench know that and the Back Benchers know it.
But there are, perhaps, about 25 per cent. of the Conservative Party—I am not


sure about the figures; the Opposition Chief Whip will correct me if I am wrong, but it is roughly that proportion—who are worried about the matter because they think, as I do, that the way in which to defend the unity of the United Kingdom is not to keep the status quo for ever and to say nothing to people in Scotland, Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom who say that they want more control over their own affairs within a United Kingdom, but to realise that just to put up the shutters of the status quo and say nothing to them is no intelligent way to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom.
That is the fundamental case that I put forward.
There are two issues. First, there is a need to decentralise decision-taking and increase democratic accountability in both Scotland and Wales, where already there is a great deal of administrative devolution under the territorial Secretaries of State and their Departments. Secondly, by recognising that need and desire, we shall effectively strengthen, not weaken, the unity of the United Kingdom.
The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) was the last in a long line of hon. Members who have commented on the question of Westminster representation and put forward the argument that this is some flaw in the proposal that can in no way be corrected, that the Westminster Parliament will remain responsible for British matters, including the English parallel of the matters devolved to Scotland and Wales. The hon. and learned Member likened me to Lord Wellington and Disraeli in one sentence. That was very flattering. If I may be so bold as to make any remarks about that at all, perhaps I might be mildly, critical.
The hon. and learned Member said that after devolution, Scottish Members would have nothing to do in the House of Commons. Scottish Members would not be able to vote on Scottish housing, education and health. That is quite correct. Those are matters for the Assembly. It is said that they would not be interested in anything else. Let me remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of the matters which deeply affect the people of Scotland and Wales and which will remain the sole responsibility of this Parliament after devolution. There is the conduct

of international affairs, including our developing partnership within the European Economic Community; policies for national security and defence; trade and industry; employment and industrial relations; the management of the economy; energy; social security; and a great many other matters. That is a great deal.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister accept that this is not the complaint? The complaint is that we shall have the powers to deal with English housing and education and all English domestic affairs.

Mr. Smith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give me credit. I shall be developing my answer. Perhaps I may correct one misappprehension. I hope that he will be good enough to accept that perhaps he minimised the rôle that Scottish Members would have.
Therefore, I think that it is nonsense to say, as I think the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said in a debate in Committee on the Scotland and Wales Bill, that 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. of the matters that concerned Scottish Members would be removed from the House of Commons. I do not accept that apportionment. Scottish and Welsh Members are deeply interested in energy policy and the ramifications that that has for our economy. That issue is not devolved. But a more important reason why all parts of the United Kingdom should be fully represented in this House is that sovereignty will remain in this House of Commons.
That sovereignty is sufficiently strong to have the power to modify, transform or even abolish the devolution Act itself. We saw a dramatic indication of this in the case of the Stormont Parliament which was created by this Parliament and abolished by this Parliament through the exercise of its sovereignty. In so far as sovereignty remains in this House of Commons it is important that all parts of the United Kingdom should be fully represented.
As I understand the argument of Conservative Members, it is that we shall have Scottish Members talking on English matters; therefore, what should we do? First, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) pointed out, the


in-out voting arrangement is not a satisfactory method of doing it. That was considered by Gladstone during one of the Irish Home Rule Bills and rejected in the House of Commons.
The suggestion has also been put forward that there ought to be a reduction in the number of Members from Scottish constituencies. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Some voices say "hear, hear" but there are others, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), who argue that we should do no such thing. The Kilbrandon Report made this recommendation as well. [Interruption.] If we are dealing with speeches, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart has not yet explained why he was in favour of a Scottish Assembly with an executive budget in October 1974. There ought to be equivalence of explanation.
Another important reason—[Interruption.] Several Members have specifically asked me to deal with matters in my speech and I am attempting to do so. Some Conservative Members who are baying on the Front Bench were not even here when the questions were asked. They should be careful to listen to the replies.
Another important reason why Scotland and Wales ought to be fully represented in this Parliament is that Parliament will remain an effective oversight for the override provisions in the Bill. The override provisions, if they are exercised by the United Kingdom Government, have to receive parliamentary approval. Therefore, it is important that all parts of the United Kingdom, particularly those parts of the country whose Assemblies' actions may be overridden, should be fully represented in this House of Commons.
There are, of course, some hon. Gentlemen who argue that we should not move towards devolution at all. Let them think about the consequence of that. There are those, like my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who say that it is impossible within a unitary State to have a legislative Assembly to which powers are devolved. That means that we can never have any legislative devolution within this unitary State. There are those who say that this is quite reasonable, and who believe that we should never have legislative devolution.

But it follows from that argument that such people are totally opposed to the principle of devolution. As I understand it, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian is now totally opposed to the principle of devolution.
But that will not do for the Conservative Front Bench, because it instructed the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart to slip into his last sentence the fact that they were not against the principle of devolution. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart marched right up the hill and was cutting down the devolution argument on all sides, but when he got to the top he could not go over the summit because before sitting down he had to say that the Conservatives were in favour of the principle of devolution.
We have had a lot of hypocrisy and cant during this debate. Let me remind this House that it has been the Labour Government who have put this matter firmly on the agenda of the nation and have asked the House of Commons to come to a decision on it. The House of Commons should remember that it must retain the capacity to act as well as the capacity to argue. That is why we have brought this matter before the House of Commons. That is a very important matter for hon. Members to bear in mind. We shall be able, during the Committee stage, to go into matters thoroughly. What we are considering here is the principle of the Bill.
I can see that there may be other schemes of devolution as well as the one put forward by the Government. We have thought long and carefully about it. I notice that, in the debate, there was very little criticism about the areas to be devolved. Hon Members were not saying that it was wrong to devolve education or health or that it was wrong to retain energy. Similarly, there was very little criticism about the control mechanisms, the override provisions, or the use of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to deal with questions of vires. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian asked about this. The use of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is restricted to the matter of the vires of Bills. It is very important to have a legal solution for that problem.
To those who say that the Scottish Assembly will acquire powers, I reply that


it cannot acquire powers that this Parliament has not given it. The United Kingdom Government can put the matter before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, whose decision will be binding upon them. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian asked whether the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had been consulted. We have ensured that the Judicial Committee and the courts' administrations generally have been informed about the proposals which concern them.
This is an important change. It was foreshadowed in the previous Bill. But we have also introduced post-assent judicial review, which is an important strengthening of the legal mechanisms.
It was interesting that on these important matters—the areas of devolution and the control mechanisms—there was little comment today. Hon. Members tended to talk more about the general principles of devolution. But there may be other schemes for devolution which are lurking in the minds of the Conservative Front Bench, who say that they are in favour of the principle and have been, as I understand it, since 1968. There cannot have been nine years with less thinking on the subject than that done by the Conservative Party. The truth is that the Conservative Opposition have absolutely no policy on devolution. It falls to the Labour Party and to this Government not only to increase the opportunity for democratic control in Scotland and Wales but also to strengthen the unity of the United Kingdom.
The hon. and learned Member for Darwen took me to task for having talked in a previous speech about the richness and diversity of the United Kingdom. I was talking at that time not about Westminster representation but generally about the case for devolution. However, it would be a great mistake for this House to think that at present in Scotland and Wales we can assume that the unity of the

United Kingdom can rest simply upon the status quo of our governmental arrangements. I genuinely do not believe that to be the case.

I believe that the Union is under stress and strain and that, just as we in Parliament from time to time have to reform our own institutions, so we must look to the institutions of the State and see whether this Union is working properly.

In a courageous and dignified speech, the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) showed that he had stuck to the principles which he had declared some time ago and had stayed with them. In a speech which must have been difficult to make for one who is as loyal to his party as he is, he indicated his clear commitment to devolution and his understanding of the processes at work in Scotland today. I agree with his analysis of the present situation. I suspect also that some of the more perceptive members of his Front Bench share that analysis. I hope that even more hon. Members on the Opposition Back Benches share it and that they will not think that the Conservative Party, simply by opposing this Bill and by opposing devolution, will put that movement away and out of the interests and minds of the people of Scotland.

If we pass this Second Reading and move on through the week to take other decisions connected with it, we shall not only improve and strengthen government in Scotland. We shall do a great deal to enhance and revivify the unity of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ian Stewart: rose—

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes, 274.

Division No. 4]
AYES
[11.00 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Boardman, H.


Anderson, Donald
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bates, Alf
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Armstrong, Ernest
Bean, R. E.
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur


Ashley, Jack
Beith, A. J.
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)


Ashton, Joe
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Bradley, Tom


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N.)
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Atkinson, Norman
Bidwell, Sydney
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)


Bain, Mrs. Margaret
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)




Buchan, Norman
Hatton, Frank
Noble, Mike


Buchanan, Richard
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Oakes, Gordon


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Ogden, Eric


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Heffer, Eric S.
O'Halloran, Michael


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Henderson, Douglas
Orbach, Maurice


Campbell, Ian
Hooson, Emlyn
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Canavan, Dennis
Horam, John
Ovenden, John


Cant, R. B.
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Carmichael, Neil
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Padley, Walter


Carter, Ray
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Palmer, Arthur


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Huckfield, Les
Pardoe, John


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Park, George


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Parker, John


Clemitson, Ivor
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Parry, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cohen, Stanley
Hunter, Adam
Pendry, Tom


Coleman, Donald
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Penhaligon, David


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Perry, Ernest


Concannon, J. D.
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Janner, Greville
Prescott, John


Corbett, Robin
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Price, William (Rugby)


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Radice, Giles


Crawford, Douglas
John, Brynmor
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Reid, George


Cronin, John
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roberts, Albert (Normarton)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Davidson, Arthur
Judd, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rodgers, Georcie (Chorley)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Kelley, Richard
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kerr, Russell
Rooker J. W.


Deakins, Eric
Kilroy-Silk. Robert
Roper, John


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kinnock, Neil
Rose, Paul B.


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Lambie, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lamborn, Harry
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dempsey, James
Lamond, James
Rowlands, Ted


Doig, Peter
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Ryman, John


Dormand, J. D.
Lee, John
Sandelson, Neville


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sedgemore, Brian


Dunn, James A.
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Selby, Harry


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sever, J.


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lipton, Marcus
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Eadie, Alex
Loyden, Eddie
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Edge, Geoff
Luard, Evan
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McCartney, Hugh
Sillars, James


English, Michael
MacCormick, Iain
Silverman. Julius


Ennals, Rt Hon David
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McElhone, Frank
Small, William


Evans,Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Snape, Peter


Evans, John (Newton)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Spearing, Nigel


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mackintosh, John P.
Spriggs, Leslie


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Maclennan, Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Faulds, Andrew
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McNamara, Kevin
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Madden, Max
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Flannery, Martin
Magee, Bryan
Stoddart, David


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Simon
Stott, Roger


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Malialieu, J. P. W.
Strang, Gavin


Ford, Ben
Marks, Kenneth
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Forrester, John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Swain, Thomas


Fraser, John (Lambeth N'w'd)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


George, Bruce
Mendelson, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Gilbert, Dr John
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Ginsburg, David
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thompson, George


Golding, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Gould, Bryan
Mitchell, Austin
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Gourlay, Harry
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Tierney, Sydney


Graham, Ted
Molloy, William
Tinn, James


Grant, John (Islngton C)
Moonman, Eric
Tomlinson, John


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tomney, Frank


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Torney, Tom


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tuck, Raphael


Hardy, Peter
Moyle, Roland
Urwin, T. W.


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Newens, Stanley
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)







Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Whitehead, Phillip
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Ward, Michael
Whitlock, William
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Watkins, David
Wigley, Dafydd
Woodall, Alec


Watkinson, John
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Woof, Robert


Watt, Hamish
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Weetch, Ken
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Weitzman, David
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)



Wellbeloved, James
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Welsh, Andrew
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joseph Harper


White, Frank R. (Bury)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)



White, James (Pollok)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Aitken, Jonathan
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Alison, Michael
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Ian


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Forman, Nigel
Loveridge, John


Arnold, Tom
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Luce, Richard


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fox, Marcus
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Awdry, Daniel
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McCrindle, Robert


Baker, Kenneth
Fry, Peter
Macfarlane, Neil


Banks, Robert
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
MacGregor, John


Bell, Ronald
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbsy)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Benyon, W.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Madel, David


Berry, Hon Anthony
Glyn, Dr Alan
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Biggs-Davison, John
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Marten, Neil


Blaker, Peter
Goodhart, Philip
Mates, Michael


Body, Richard
Goodhew, Victor
Mather, Carol


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodlad, Alastair
Maude, Angus


Bottomley, Peter
Gorst, John
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mawby, Ray


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mayhew, Patrick


Brittan, Leon
Grieve, Percy
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brocklebank-Fowler, C
Griffiths, Eldon
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Brooke, Peter
Grist, Ian
Mills, Peter


Brotherton, Michael
Grylls, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall, Sir John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moate, Roger


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Molyneaux, James


Buck, Antony
Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Hector


Budgen, Nick
Hannam, John
Montgomery, Fergus


Bulmer, Esmond
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Burden, F. A.
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Haselhurst, Alan
Morgan, Geraint


Carlisle, Mark
Hastings, Stephen
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Channon, Paul
Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Churchill, W. S.
Hayhoe, Barney
Mudd, David


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Heseltine, Michael
Neave, Airey


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Higgins, Terrence L.
Neubert, Michael


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hodgson, Robin
Newton, Tony


Clegg, Walter
Holland, Philip
Normanton, Tom


Cockroft, John
Hordern, Peter
Nott, John


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Onslow, Cranley


Cope, John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Osborn, John


Corrie, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, John (Harrow West)


Costain, A. P.
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Hurd, Douglas
Page, Richard (Workington)


Critchley, Julian
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Paisley, Rev Ian


Crouch, David
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Parkinson, Cecil


Crowder, F. P.
James, David
Pattle, Geoffrey


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Percival, Ian


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Jessel, Toby
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pink, R. Bonner


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Drayson, Burnaby
Jopling, Michael
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Durant, Tony
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Prior, Rt Hon James


Dykes, Hugh
Kershaw, Anthony
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kimball, Marcus
Raison, Timothy


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rathbone, Tim


Elliott, Sir William
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Emery, Peter
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Eyre, Reginald
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Knox, David
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lamont, Norman
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Farr, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rhodes James, R.


Fell, Anthony
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lawrence, Ivan
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lawson, Nigel
Ridsdale, Julian







Rifkind, Malcolm
Speed, Keith
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Spence, John
Viggers, Peter


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne v)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Wakeham, John


Ross, William (Londonderry)
Sproat, Iain
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stainton, Keith
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Royle, Sir Anthony
Stanley, John
Wall, Patrick


Sainsbury, Tim
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Walters, Denn's


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Warren, Kenneth


Scott, Nicholas
Stokes, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Scott-Hopkins, James
Stradling Thomas, J.
Wells, John


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Tapsell, Peter
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shepherd, Colin
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shersby, Michael
Tebbit, Norman
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Silvester, Fred
Temple-Morris, Peter
Younger, Hon George


Sims, Roger
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret



Sinclair, Sir George
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Skeet, T. H. H.
Townsend, Cyril D.
Mr. Jim Lester and Sir George Young.


Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Trotter, Neville



Smith, Timothy John (Ashfleld)
van Straubenzee, W. R.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes, 265, Noes 313.

Division No. 5]
AYES
[11.16 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Heseltine, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Drayson, Burnaby
Higgins, Terrence L.


Alison, Michael
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hodgson, Robin


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Durant, Tony
Holland, Philip


Arnold, Tom
Dykes, Hugh
Hordern, Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Awdry, Daniel
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Baker, Kenneth
Elliott, Sir William
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Banks, Robert
Emery, Peter
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Bell, Ronald
Eyre, Reginald
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hurd, Douglas


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Benyon, W.
Farr, John
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fell, Anthony
James, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanstd&amp;W'df'd)


Blaker, Peter
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Jessel, Toby


Body, Richard
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jones. Arthur (Daventry)


Bottomley, Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet
Jopling, Michael


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Forman, Nigel
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fox, Marcus
Kershaw, Anthony


Brittan, Leon
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Kimball, Marcus


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Fry, Peter
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Brooke, Peter
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Brotherton, Michael
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Lamont, Norman


Buck, Antony
Glyn, Dr Alan
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Budgen, Nick
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Bulmer, Esmond
Goodhart, Philip
Lawrence, Ivan


Burden, F. A.
Goodhew, Victor
Lawson, Nigel


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Goodlad, Alastair
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Carlisle, Mark
Gorst, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Lloyd, Ian


Channon, Paul
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Loveridge, John


Churchill, W. S.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Luce, Richard


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grieve, Percy
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Griffiths, Eldon
McCrindle, Robert


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Grist, Ian
Macfarlane, Neil


Clegg, Walter
Grylls, Michael
MacGregor, John


Cockroft, John
Hall, Sir John
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Cope,John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McNair-Wilson, P (New Forest)


Cormack, Patrick
Hampson, Dr Keith
Madel, David


Corrie, John
Hannam, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Costain, A. P.
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Marten, Neil


Critchley, Julian
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mates, Michael


Crouch, David
Haselhurst, Alan
Mather, Carol


Crowder, F. P.
Hastings, Stephen
Maude, Angus


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hawkins, Paul
Mawby, Ray


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hayhoe, Barney
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin




Mayhew, Patrick
Rathbone, Tim
Stanley, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Miller, Hal (Btomsgrove)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mills, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stokes, John


Miscampbell, Norman
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Tapsell, Peter


Moate, Roger
Rhodes James, R,
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Monro, Hector
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Montgomery, Fergus
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Tebbit, Norman


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Ridsdale, Julian
Temple-Morris, Peter


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Morgan, Geraint
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Trotter, Neville


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Neave, Airey
Royle, Sir Anthony
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Neubert, Michael
Sainsbury, Tim
Viggers, Peter


Newton, Tony
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wakeham, John


Normanton, Tom
Scott, Nicholas
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Nott, John
Scott-Hopkins, James
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Onslow, Cranley
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Shelton, William (Streatharm)
Wall, Patrick


Osborn, John
Shepherd, Colin
Walters, Dennis


Page, John (Harrow West)
Shersby, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Silvester, Fred
Weatherill, Bernard


Page, Richard (Workington)
Sims. Roger
Wells, John


Paisley, Rev Ian
Sinclair, Sir George
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Parkinson, Cecil
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wiggin, Jerry


Pattie, Geoffrey
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Winterton, Nicholas


Percival, Ian
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Speed, Keith
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Pink, R. Bonner
Spence, John
Younger, Hon George


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)



Price, David (Eastleigh)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Prior, Rt Hon James
Sproat, Iain
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Michael Roberts.


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Stainton, Keith



Raison, Timothy
Stanbrook, Ivor





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Cohen, Stanley
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Anderson, Donald
Coleman, Donald
Flannery, Martin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Armstrong, Ernest
Concannon, J. D.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Ashley, Jack
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Ford, Ben


Ashton, Joe
Corbett, Robin
Forrester, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Atkinson, Norman
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Crawford, Douglas
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Bain, Mrs. Margaret
Crawshaw, Richard
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cronin, John
George, Bruce


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Gilbert, Dr John


Bates, Alf
Cryer, Bob
Ginsburg, David


Bean, R. E.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Golding, John


Beith, A. J.
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Gould, Bryan


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Dalyell, Tam
Gourlay, Harry


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Davidson, Arthur
Graham, Ted


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Grant, John (Isington C)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Grocott, Bruce


Boardman, H.
Deakins, Eric
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hardy, Peter


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Dempsey, James
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bradley, Tom
Doig, Peter
Hatton, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dormand, J. D.
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dunn, James A.
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Dunnett, Jack
Henderson, Douglas


Buchan, Norman
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hooson, Emlyn


Buchanan, Richard
Eadie, Alex
Horam, John


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Edge, Geoff
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Campbell, Ian
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Huckfield, Les


Canavan, Dennis
English, Michael
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Cant, R. B.
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Carmichael, Neil
Evans,Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Carter, Ray
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Evans, John (Newton)
Hunter, Adam


Cartwright, John
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Clemitson, Ivor
Fauids, Andrew
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Janner, Greville







Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Moyle, Roland
Steel, Rt Hon David


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


John, Brynmor
Newens, Stanley
Stoddart, David


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Noble, Mike
Stott, Roger


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Oakes, Gordon
Strang, Gavin


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ogden, Eric
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
O'Halloran, Michael
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Orbach, Maurice
Swain, Thomas


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Judd, Frank
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Kaufman, Gerald
Padley, Walter
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Kelley, Richard
Palmer, Arthur
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Kerr, Russell
Pardoe, John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Park, George
Thompson, George


Kinnock, Neil
Parker, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Lambie. David
Parry, Robert
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Lamborn, Harry
Pavitt, Laurie
Tierney, Sydney


Lamond, James
Pendry, Tom
Tinn, James


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Penhaligon, David
Tomlinson, John


Lee, John
Perry, Ernest
Tomney, Frank


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Torney, Tom


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Prescott, John
Tuck, Raphael


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Urwin, T. W.


Lipton, Marcus
Price, William (Rugby)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Loyden, Eddie
Radice, Giles
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Luard, Evan
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Wainwrignt, Richard (Colne V)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Reid, George
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Richardson, Miss Jo
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


McCartney, Hugh
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Ward, Michael


MacCormick, Iain
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Watkins, David


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Watkinson, John


McElhone, Frank
Robinson. Geoffrey
Watt, Hamish


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Roderick, Caerwyn
Weetch, Ken


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Weitzman, David


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Wellbeloved, James


Mackintosh, John P.
Rooker, J. W.
Welsh, Andrew


Maclennan, Robert
Roper, John
White, Frank R. (Bury)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Rose, Paul B.
White, James (Pollok)


McNamara, Kevin
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Whitehead, Phillip


Madden, Max
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Whitlock, William


Magee, Bryan
Rowlands, Ted
Wigley, Dafydd


Mahon, Simon
Ryman, John
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Sandelson, Neville
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Marks, Kenneth
Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Selby, Harry
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sever, J.
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Meacher, Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Mendelson, John
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Mikardo, Ian
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wise, Mrs Audrey Woodall, Alec


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Sillars, James
Woodall, Alec


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Silverman, Julius
Woof, Robert


Mitchell, Austin
Skinner, Dennis
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Small, William
Young, David (Bolton E)


Molloy, William
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)



Moonman, Eric
Snape, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. James Hamilton.


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Spriggs, Leslie



Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stallard, A. W.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 39 (Amendment on second or third reading):—

The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 263.

Division No. 6]
AYES
[11.32 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Bean, R. E.
Broughton, Sir Alfred


Anderson, Donald
Beith, A. J.
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)


Armstrong, Ernest
Bennett, Andrew (Stockoort N)
Buchan, Norman


Ashley, Jack
Bidwell, Sydney
Buchanan, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)


Atkinson, Norman
Boardman, H.
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Bain, Mrs. Margaret
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Campbell, Ian


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Canavan, Dennis


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Bradley, Tom
Cant, R. B.


Bates, Alf
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Carmichael, Neil




Carter, Ray
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pavitt, Laurie


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pendry, Tom


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Penhaligon, David


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hunter, Adam
Perry, Ernest


Clemitson, Ivor
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Prescott, John


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Cohen, Stanley
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Price, William (Rugby)


Coleman, Donald
Janner, Greville
Radice, Giles


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Concannon, J. D.
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Reid, George


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Corbett, Robin
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Crawford, Douglas
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cronin, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Judd, Frank
Rooker, J. W.


Cryer, Bob
Kaufman, Gerald
Roper, John


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Kelley, Richard
Rose, Paul B.


Davidson, Arthur
Kerr, Russell
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli]
Knox, David
Rowlands, Ted


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lambie, David
Ryman, John


Deakins, Eric
Lamborn, Harry
Sandelson, Neville


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Sedgemore, Brian


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Lee, John
Selby, Harry


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sever, J.


Dempsey, James
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Shaw, Arnold (Ilfora South)


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Dormand, J. D.
Lipton, Marcus
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Loyden, Eddie
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dunn, James A.
Luard, Evan
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dunnett, Jack
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sillars, James


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Silverman, Julius


Eadie, Alex
McCartney, Hugh
Skinner, Dennis


Edge, Geoff
MacCormick, Iain
Small, William


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McElhone, Frank
Snape, Peter


English, Michael
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Spearing, Nigel


Ennals, Rt Hon David
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans,Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Stallard, A. W.


Evans, John (Newton)
Mackintosh, John P.
Steel, Rt Hon David


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Maclennan, Robert
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Faulds, Andrew
McNamara, Kevin
Stoddart, David


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Madden, Max
Stott, Roger


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Magee, Bryan
Strang, Gavin


Flannery, Martin
Mahon, Simon
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Swain, Thomas


Ford, Ben
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Forrester, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mikardo, Ian
Thompson, George


George, Bruce
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Gilbert, Dr John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Ginsburg, David
Mitchell, Austin
Tierney, Sydney


Golding, John
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Tinn, James


Gould, Bryan
Molloy, William
Tomlinson, John


Gourlay, Harry
Moonman, Eric
Tomney, Frank


Graham, Ted
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Torney, Tom


Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Tuck, Raphael


Gray, Hamish
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Urwin, T. W.


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Moyle, Roland
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Grocott, Bruce
Mudd, David
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hardy, Peter
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Newens, Stanley
Ward, Michael


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Noble, Mike
Watkins, David


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Oakes, Gordon
Watkinson, John


Hatton, Frank
Ogden, Eric
Watt, Hamish


Hayman, Mrs Helene
O'Halloran, Michael
Weetch, Ken


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Orbach, Maurice
Weitzman, David


Henderson, Douglas
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wellbeloved, James


Hooson, Emlyn
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Welsh, Andrew


Horam, John
Padley, Walter
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Palmer, Arthur
White, James (Pollok)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Pardoe, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Park, George
Whitlock, William


Huckfleld, Les
Parker, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Parry, Robert
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick







Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)



Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Wise, Mrs Audrey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Woodall, Alec
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joseph Harper


Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Woof, Robert



Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Wrigglesworth, Ian





NOES


Abse, Leo
Fry, Peter
Mather, Carol


Aitken, Jonathan
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Maude, Angus


Alison, Michael
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mawby, Ray


Arnold, Tom
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Glyn, Dr Alan
Mayhew, Patrick


Awdry, Daniel
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mendelson, John


Baker, Kenneth
Goodhart, Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Banks, Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Peter


Bell, Ronald
Goodlad, Alastair
Miscampbell, Norman


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Gorst, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Moate, Roger


Benyon, W.
Gower. Sir Raymond (Barry)
Molyneaux, James


Berry, Hon Anthony
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Monro, Hector


Biggs-Davison, John
Grieve, Percy
Montgomery, Fergus


Body, Richard
Griffiths, Eldon
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grist, Ian
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bottomley, Peter
Grylls, Michael
Morgan, Geraint


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hall, Sir John
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Brittan, Leon
Hampson, Dr Keith
Neave, Airey


Brooke, Peter
Hannam, John
Neubert, Michael


Brotherton, Michael
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Newton, Tony


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Normanton, Tom


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Haselhurst, Alan
Nott, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


Buck, Antony
Havers, Ri Won Sir Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Budgen, Nick
Hawkins, Paul
Osborn, John


Bulmer, Esmond
Hayhoe, Barney
Ovenden, John


Burden, F. A.
Heseltine, Michael
Page, John (Harrow West)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Higgins, Terrence L.
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Carlisle, Mark
Holland, Philip
Page, Richard (Workington)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hordern, Peter
Paisley, Rev Ian


Channon, Paul
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Parkinson, Cecil


Churchill, W. S.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Percival, Ian


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hurd. Douglas
Phipps, Dr Colin


Clegg, Walter
Hutchison. Michael Clark
Pink, R. Bonner


Cockroft, John
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
James, David
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Cope, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cormack, Patrick
Jessel, Toby
Prior, Rt Hon James


Cope, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Costain, A. P.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Raison, Timothy


Critchley, Julian
Jopling, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Crouch, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dalyell, Tam
Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rhodes James, R.


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Mrs Jill
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Drayson, Burnaby
Lamond, James
Ridsdale, Julian


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lamont, Norman
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Durant, Tony
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lawrence, Ivan
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Elliott, Sir William
Lawson, Nigel
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Emery, Peter
Leadbitter, Ted
Royle, Sir Anthony


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sainsbury, Tim


Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Ian
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Loveridge, John
Scott Hopkins, James


Farr, John
Luce, Richard
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fell, Anthony
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Colin


Fisher, Sir Nigel
MacGregor, John
Shersby, Michael


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Silvester, Fred


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sims, Roger


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, P (New Forest)
Sinclair, Sir George


Forman, Nigel
Madel, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Fox, Marcus
Marten, Neil
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Fraser. Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Mates, Michael
Speed, Keith







Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Tebbit, Norman
Walters, Dennis


Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Sproat, Iain
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Weatherill, Bernard


Stainton, Keith
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Wells, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Trotter, Neville
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Stanley, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wiggin, Jerry


Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Vaughan, Dr Gerald
Winterton, Nicholas


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Viggers, Peter
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Stokes, John
Wainwrlght, Richard (Colne V)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wakeham, John



Tapsell, Peter
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Walker-Smiih, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Michael Roberts


Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Wall, Patrick

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Committee tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: The Instruction in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham West (Mr. English) is not selected.

SCOTLAND [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified.—

Resolved.

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for changes in the government of Scotland, it is expedient to authorize—
(1) the payment of any sums out of moneys provided by Parliament; and
(2) any charge on or payment out of or into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund.—[Mr. Robert Sheldon.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (CIGARETTES EXCISE DUTY)

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Robert Sheldon.

11.48 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Sheldon): rose—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to the Orders of the Day.
It will be within your recollection that on previous occasions where it has appeared that the document before the House is not the document in the form in which it is at present being considered in the EEC institutions, it has been agreed that the document should not be considered at the time until the latest form is available in the House. I understand that that applies to the document specified on the Order Paper.
I wonder whether, should my apprehension be correct, you would ascertain whether we could proceed in that way this evening.

Mr. Speaker: I think that what has usually happened, as the House will remember, is that someone from the Front Bench has said something about it. I must confess that I do not know whether it is the same document. I follow the Order Paper.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I might be able to help the House. The actual document is the Fifth Directive, dated 10th February 1976. This is the proposal that has been before the Council and is the subject for the debate here today.

Mr. Powell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the Financial Secretary indicate whether this document has not been substantially altered into the form in which it is now before or will come before the next Council of Ministers? That is the information which some of us have received.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: This was the proposal as of 10th February 1976. The House will be aware that, following the publication of any of the Commission documents, a great deal of discussion takes place. If there is to be any amendment of the views of the Commission, information and representations having been received from the various member countries, then of course this does not preclude further documents being placed before the Council of Ministers in due course.

Mr. Peter Rees: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the Financial Secretary state unequivocally whether there has been a fresh proposal considered by the Council and, if so, in what regard it differs materially from the proposal dated 10th February 1976 to which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has drawn attention?

Mr. Robert Sheldon: This is the document due to be discussed here today, and any further representations that member countries may wish to make can always result in further documentation which is not before us here today.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that there is a kind of Mark II document now going the rounds. In view of the fact that there is now a second document which substantially alters the first, is it not a waste of time for the House to discuss Mark I when we should be saving our fire until such time as we can have Mark II?

Mr. Michael English: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the Financial Secretary give us an assurance that if there is any document subsequent to this one of 1976, it will be debated in this House?

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I might be able to help the House. I am sure you will know, Mr. Speaker, that it is not for me to give assurances about any further debates. That is a matter for the Leader of the House. But there are no other documents at this time.

Mr. Peter Rees: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are aware that the only document in the Vote Office is the proposal dated 10th February, and I am very happy indeed to accept that from the Financial Secretary, but will he give an assurance to the House that there is no later proposal which differs in any marked degree from that which we are being asked to debate tonight?

Mr. Powell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Financial Secretary will be aware that in previous cases where the only available document for the House is known to have been already superseded in substantial respects in the course of the work of the Community, the Government have been agreeable to the matter being put forward until a time when the House could have the latest form of the proposal before it. Will he not, through you, Mr. Speaker, give consideration to following that course on this occasion?

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. If there is not another

document superseding this one, will the Financial Secretary arrange that there should be, so that the British interests in this matter may be put forward much more clearly than in the present document?

Mr. Pavitt: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are now quite clear that there are and can be amendments to the document which is now before the House, and that it can be substantially altered in due course. The document that we are about to discuss was considered on the 28th Report of the Select Committee on European Legislation; therefore, we have before us some guidance upon how we are to discuss this particular document. If, however, there is to be a further amendment to this document, does that mean that the Committee will then be sitting again and that we shall be receiving further advice and will then have to discuss it all over again on the advice that we receive from our Select Committee?

Mr. Speaker: The House knows that am very jealous of the rights of the House where the European Commission is concerned. I believe that we have to guard the rights of the House. But I have no control over the Order Paper of the House. I can only listen to the discussion, and if I am wise I shall not say any more. However, I believe that if there is another document the House is entitled to have it. In any case, I must call the Minister to move the motion concerning excise duty on cigarettes.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Douglas Jay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister is unaware whether or not there is another document, surely that leaves us in a very unsatisfactory position. After all, we are dealing here with legislation. It is not just a motion. Surely the House cannot debate and approve or disapprove of legislation when it has not got the text of that legislation before it. In those circumstances, is there not a clear alternative? The alternative is to defer the debate until we at least know whether there is another document.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: It would be helpful if you, Mr. Speaker, with your authority, were to inquire


whether there is a document which postdates that which is before us, which is one year and nine months old now. If there is no such new document, we could get on with the business. If the Minister does not know whether there is a new document, that leaves us in some difficulty. However, many of us suspect that the Minister knows perfectly well that there is a new document and that he is choosing to prevaricate over this issue to conceal the fact that there is one. This puts the Chair in a grave difficulty over this matter. Could you not, Mr. Speaker, lean gently upon the Minister to say clearly, one way or the other, whether he knows whether there is another document?

Mr. Neil Marten: Clearly there is another document. The Minister ought to make that absolutely clear. When a similar situation arose on a previous occasion—I think that it concerned motor vehicles—the then Minister on the Front Bench had the courtesy to say that he was not quite sure about the matter and would not like to move his motion but that we could take it on another day. I have great respect for the Financial Secretary. I ask him to do the same thing as one of his colleagues did on a previous occasion.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: You, Mr. Speaker, are a zealous guardian of the rights of the House and you have done your best to ascertain from the Minister whether there is a second paper which is much more up to date and which perhaps the House ought to be debating tonight. However, in the absence of that second paper and at such a late hour, and as the House will have to sit very late tomorrow night, is it right that the House should be subjected to a debate that will have to be repeated on a more up-to-date basis in a few weeks' time?

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: The Explanatory Memorandum on European Communities Legislation, which we have over the signature of the Financial Secretary, is dated 30th June. We know, nevertheless, that negotiations about this important matter are continuing in Brussels and have been going on very vigorously, especially in the last few weeks. If there is not another document, or another conclusion that has been reached when

the situation is obviously different from what it was on 30th June, it would be right for the Minister to put the House in the position of knowing the latest situation before we debate this matter.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to enquire of the Minister whether there has been a material change from the document of 10th February 1976 to the contents of his memorandum of 30th June, whatever might have happened subsequently. If that is so, clearly there is—or there may not be—some discrepancy between these two documents.
I also draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, and that of the Minister, to a situation which arose on the taxation of motor vehicles when dissatisfaction was expressed by hon. Members relating to a second document which was known to exist. On that occasion the Minister withdrew, or at least did not proceed with, the motion. I think that was to the general satisfaction of the House and, in the end, to the Minister.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Perhaps I might repeat what I thought I said at the outset. This is the last formal document that is required by the Scrutiny Committee. There are, of course, a whole multitude of working papers by various member Governments as they make their representations. But, clearly, these are not matters which normally go to the Scrutiny Committee. This is the last formal document of the kind which goes to the Scrutiny Committee. This is the one which has been made available and this is the one which we ought to be debating this evening.

Mr. Peter Rees: The Financial Secretary is still shirking the essential issue, which is not whether this is the document before the Scrutiny Committee. I am quite happy to accept that, as I am sure the House is. The issue is whether there is a later draft proposal—not a working paper—which would be a more proper basis for a debate in this House on the tobacco question. [Hon. Members: "Answer."]

Mr. Graham Page: Perhaps I might help the Minister. He said just now that this was the last document asked for by the Scrutiny Committee. [Hon.


Members: "He did not."] Well, the Scrutiny Committee does not "require" documents; it relies on the Minister to supply them. The fact that this is the last document to come before the Scrutiny Committee is no answer to the point of order. We are asking whether there is another document. Indeed, it is unfortunate that this House is called upon to debate a document as old as February 1976. It is incredible that there are no other documents bringing the whole matter more up to date. In those circumstances, ought we not to ask the Minister to apply for an adjournment?

Mr. English: Will not the Minister just give us a simple statement that to his knowledge no other proposal is going before the Council of Ministers? If it turns out that that is incorrect, then that other proposal will be debated in this House. That is all we want.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: We are making heavy weather, but we frequently do with regard to these matters. The position is clear; this is the formal document available for the Scrutiny Committee and there are no others. Of course, everyone knows that the whole point of this debate is to influence the kind of negotiations that are eventually going to take place. The whole purpose of having this debate is to enable the Minister responsible to listen to the arguments put forward and take them into account when it comes to the negotiations.
Clearly, at the time of the negotiations member Governments put proposals to each other. This goes on all the time. We would be foolish if we did not understand that this is the normal way these things happen. The purpose of this debate—if it is to be well timed—is to take place on such an occasion when these working papers are going around. What I and the Government want to hear are the views of hon. Members on this matter so that we can take these into account when we come to the negotiating position.
With regard to the documents proposed by the Commission, this is the last formal document available to the Scrutiny Committee, and it is the one which we should be discussing this evening.

Mr. Speaker: Might I now comment? It is quite clear that we are to have a

very wide debate on all aspects of Community policy with regard to harmonising duty on cigarettes. We have had our points of order, and views have been expressed strongly. I now suggest that we proceed with the discussion, and that we should time the debate not from the beginning of the points of order, when I called the Minister, but from the time when he moves the motion.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: rose—

Mr. Peter Rees: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the Minister's own analysis, we shall be having a slightly sterile debate. As he has conceded that the purpose of this debate is to influence the course of negotiations, should it turn out—we still have not had a plain and unequivocal answer from him—that there is a draft proposal of a later date, whether it has been before the Scrutiny Committee or not, we shall not know in what measure and in what direction we are to influence these negotiations. I really think that the Financial Secretary should be a little more candid. I hope that he is being completely candid, but he has left me with the unworthy suspicion that there is another draft proposal, and we cannot have a meaningful debate until that proposal is before us so that we can know in what direction the negotiations are currently moving.

Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, and for clarification with the Financial Secretary. In the Explanatory Note before the House, there is a reference to minima and maxima of 15 per cent. and 50 per cent. relating to the specific component. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a fact that those figures have since been altered and that the agreed alteration is 5 per cent. and 55 per cent. respectively? Surely there is some instrument in which that agreement has been recorded and on which any comment of this House should go forward.

Mr. Marten: I wonder whether I can make a helpful suggestion. Will the Minister give an assurance that, if he listens to the views of this House and then goes off to negotiate, he will not give agreement to anything until he has returned to this House and we have debated what he has negotiated? That is the key of the control of this House. Unless he does that, we lose control by


this House. The right hon. Gentleman's own Prime Minister said clearly in his letter to the General Secretary of the Labour Party that this Parliament must regain control of the legislation of this House. Will the right hon. Gentleman give that assurance?

12.07 a.m.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The points which have been raised can be suitably injected into the debate, and perhaps I can answer them during the course of the debate.
I beg to move,
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/414/76 on excise duty on cigarettes.
The purpose of this debate is to allow just that kind of comment to be made, on which the Government will be making decisions about their negotiating stance.
Clearly, the range of specific duties is an important aspect which we shall have to put in our own proposals to the Community countries involved in these matters. But the whole purpose of this debate really concerns the harmonisation of excise duties, especially the first of those duties which we are attempting to harmonise, which is the tobacco duty. This is because an attempt was made earlier to harmonise alcohol duties, and there is another suggestion about the harmonisation of hydrocarbon duties. But these have not come before the House and are not likely to for some time because little progress has been made so far.
But tobacco offers a number of opportunities, not least because there are a number of member countries which have State monopolies clearly designed to minimise the possibilities of competition. It was felt that progress here might be more readily achieved.
The First Directive concerning manufactured tobacco was adopted in 1972 and came into force on 1st July 1973. Following our entry into the Community, there was a five-year derogation period to us which was extended to 1st January 1978. Prior to January 1978 we have had in the past a specific duty on the actual tobacco. Now there will be two elements. In fact, we have already achieved part of this. There will be a specific duty—specific not on the value of the tobacco but specific relating to the number of cigarettes. So there is a duty based on

each cigarette, and that is the specific duty. In addition, there is an ad valorem tax which is based on the retail price. The intention in the harmonisation is to narrow the gap between specific duties—those based on the price of cigarettes—and the ad valorem tax based on retail price.
The first stage, which we have now almost wholly implemented, concerns the first directive, where the specific element is applied between the ranges of 5 and 75 per cent. of the total excise duties. We are now talking about the second stage, which follows from the Fifth Directive, where the specific element is to be defined not by reference to the total excise duty but to the total duty, from whatever source it may be. Otherwise, it would be simple and easy to avoid the responsibility of implementing this directive by means of changing value added tax and the duty, and so distort the calculations. So the Fifth Directive deals with the specific duty element defined by reference to the total taxation.
In his Budget speech last April, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer expected to apply the duty on cigarettes predominantly ad valorem. It is not possible to state what proportion of the tax at the moment is ad valorem. That is because so much will depend, as any tax of this kind will depend, on the tax on cigarettes at the beginning of 1978. We expect it to be under the specific element—a little under 50 per cent.—and, therefore, we are at present within the proposals of the Fifth Directive.
One thing is clear. The narrowing of the specific element limit from 5 to 75 per cent., as it was in the first stage, to the suggestion of 15 to 50 per cent., or whatever it might be, is going to be unacceptable to all member States. The discussions we have had exemplify the problem one has, because in making one's representations paper goes backwards and forwards to an amount that would overwhelm the resources of any Government in making all the papers available to this House. But we have expressed concern that the EEC does not allow for rates of tax to be varied to discourage the very dangerous types of cigarette.
We have put forward that view, based on discussions which the Department of


Health and Social Security has been having with its own medical advisers. On 8th March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services pointed out the particular problems. He said:
We have proposed in the EEC that a health element should be introduced as part of the process of tax harmonisation. What we want is a supplementary tax on those cigarettes with the highest tar yield, scientifically measured. If this is accepted in the EEC, we will have a very powerful financial incentive throughout Europe for smokers to buy the less dangerous brands.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: West Germany, for example, considers that nicotine is the most dangerous thing. We consider tar to be. Therefore, the duty the hon. Gentleman proposes on cigarettes would be on high-tar content, whereas West Germany might take a different view.

Mr. Sheldon: What we are seeking would enable us to introduce a health-related tax. We believe that individual Member States ought to be allowed to impose health-related taxation. The criteria should be whatever the particular Government wished to impose. We seek to achieve a situaton whereby, although there was an increasing move toward harmonisation, nevertheless such action would be permitted to each of the member States. In putting this point, we have received a great deal of sympathy, but a number of difficulties remain.

Mr. English: My right hon. Friend has startled us all by apparently saying that we are proposing that each State could apply a health-related tax based on whatever criteria it chose. For example, if the French said that long tarry cigarettes full of nicotine were the least dangerous to health, presumably they could tax cigarettes of the opposite sort rather than the ones which we might tax or the Germans might tax.

Mr. Sheldon: This would be for a limited period, during which time evidence would mount as to the effectiveness or otherwise or such a health-related tax. We are the country which is pursuing this point because we feel that there is need for further examination of the matter. As a result of our representations, there is to be some consideration of the possibility of a limited period for imposing such a health-related tax, and, in

addition, there is to be a study by the Commission of tobacco taxation for health purposes.
I am in close touch with the Tobacco Advisory Committee. This is an important industry, and it is necessary that its possibilities for exporting, as well as the dangers of excessive imports of kinds of cigarettes which could put us in a difficult position, should be looked at closely. Because this is an important industry, it is necessary also to take its views fully into account, and I have been in close contact with the industry for that reason. There is the need to preserve the revenue as well as the need to ensure that any changes we make take account of the health of our people, and these are the factors which ought to decide our own negotiating position in the further discussions we shall be having on the Fifth Directive.

12.17 a.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Anyone who had absorbed the assurances which used to be given that our own domestic taxation system would be unaffected by membership of the European Economic Community must have had a severe shock on addressing his mind to this whole subject, for here we see how the most minute and domestic details, matters which ought to correspond to our own policy in this country, are not merely subject to direct surveillance, permission or refusal of permission by the Community but tied up as bargaining counters with other considerations which enter into the same negotiation. This really is evidence of the correctness of those of us who said that in 1972 we were surrendering the power of the House to control the domestic taxation of this country. That is what this argument is about.
The Financial Secretary showed himself aware—the House will be glad of it—of the impact upon the industry and upon employment in this country of the eventual form which these regulations take. He will not be surprised at the intervention of a Northern Ireland Member, since there are at least two important branches of the industry in Northern Ireland, and our sensitivity on the matter of employment is well understood.
For the purposes of the British industry, the specific element of the taxation is of special importance, since the British


industry, at least in part, relies upon the quality of its product, and, clearly, a specific duty protects quality, giving it a competitive chance, whereas an ad valorem duty operates in the opposite direction by placing a premium upon competition in price alone and not in quality. It is to be hoped, therefore, that in the pursuit of these negotiations the Government will endeavour to ensure that the specific element of the taxation is not further reduced below what is proposed at present, and, indeed, that the limits within which other countries—particularly the monopoly countries, France and Italy—can resort to ad valorem taxation are as narrowly drawn as we can secure.
Hoping that the Financial Secretary is, as I am sure he is, seized of those objectives, I ask him to avoid, if he can, entangling the health purposes with the negotiation of the levels of specific and ad valorem taxation, whatever be the arguments for or against a health-related element in the taxation, and certainly he would have the support of most right hon. and hon. Members in seeking to retain the judgment in that matter in the hands of national authorities.
Whatever justification there is for it, it is not a matter that is connected with the other question as between specific and ad valorem duties. What the right hon. Gentleman must not do is trade off a damaging concession on the form of the duties in order to secure his way over the health-related element. As he said, the health-related element as at present being discussed is a brief and grudging concession that we may get. It would be a great pity if, to obtain that, we were to lose the central purpose of these negotiations, which is to protect the British industry and the characteristics and export opportunities of the British industry, which are closely bound up with the specific element in the new form of duties.

12.21 a.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: I have listened to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on many occasions in this House. He has persuaded me of one thing, and that is that it requires either a clever man or a foolish one to try to challenge him on the argument that he makes at any time.
I think that I detected what the right hon. Gentleman was trying to say. I think

that I might be able to detect some flaws in his argument after I have read it in Hansard. But tonight I am not going to claim that I am either so wise or so foolish that I shall start arguing about them. It is no disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman or to my right hon. Friend if I try to have my argument with my right hon. Friend on safer ground from my point of view, rather than deal with the argument from the other side of the House. I assure my right hon. Friend that I am on his side, though when he hears what I have to say he might not think so.
My first point is about interest, or financial interest. So far as I know, the fact that I am a taxpayer and consumer of tobacco products does not put me into the category of having a special financial interest that ought to be declared. That does not apply to every hon. Member The House knows that on this occasion, as on others, hon. Members who have a special relationship with the tobacco companies are present and have been showing their concern.
My concern, as in the past when tobacco has been discussed, is that the interest of those I had hoped would have been helping the House with the special knowledge that has come to them from their association with a tobacco company is declared. Too often, by accident or design, they seem to keep their heads below the parapet when the flak is flying. They are active outside the Chamber, but not so active inside.
I hope that tonight, either because of, or in spite of, what I have to say, some of those hon. Members with a special self-interest will try to take part in this debate. If they do not, those by whom they are employed will know of the concern of one hon. Member. It might be a good trade unionist argument. I do not like to be thought to be doing for nothing what other people are to be paid to do, or are being paid to do.
I ask my right hon. Friend to look at the 23-page document about which there was some argument before, and also at his own four-page Explanatory Memorandum. I think that I understood that eventually, but I suggest that there is a need for a one-page explanatory document to explain the four-page explanatory document that my right hon Friend put


it. I know that my right hon. Friend does not write in that terminology to his constituents, and that he does not talk in that kind of terminology to his constituents in Aston-under-Lyne. If he looks at that document and tries to make a simple man's version of what is coming, I shall be much happier.
It seems that my right hon. Friend and other Treasury Ministers are in the delightful position—

Mr. Pavitt: rose—

Mr. Ogden: May I continue?

Mr. Pavitt: I apologise. I thought my hon. Friend was about to sit down.

Mr. Ogden: It is not often that I speak in the House. I am not an instant expert on everything, so I hope that my hon. Friend will not try to rush me. It seems that my right hon. Friend and other Treasury Ministers are in the delightful position of always trying to encourage us to do good by taxation. In the Budget before last the Chancellor claimed that he could raise revenue and at the same time do good for our health by increasing the duty on cigarettes.
Yet Ministers surely must know that although a temporary increase in taxation on tobacco and tobacco products has an immediate effect, in that all smokers decide to give up smoking, over a period consumption increases and almost returns to where it was before. The only benefit is that the Treasury has more money. I am not suggesting that Treasury Ministers are hypocritical, but they must know that the argument that they increase taxation on tobacco products for our own good is very weak.
Paragraph 6 in the Explanatory Memorandum which was made available at the Vote Office says:
The United Kingdom has taken the opportunity of the consideration of second stage harmonisation"—
that is a word that only an estate-agent mentality could use—
to propose that Member States should be free to impose a supplementary duty on cigarettes with a high yield of noxious substances.
There was a suggestion in earlier exchanges that every country should be able to charge whatever supplementary duty on whichever kind of tobacco product it thought fit. It would be ridiculous if the

Government's advisers—the scientific and the health advisers—were not able to decide which substances were safer or safest and which were more dangerous or most dangerous. The only suggestion in this four-page document is that we should not hold taxes as they are but that the duty should be increased on those tobacco products which are thought to have a high yield of noxious substances. There is no mention in the Explanatory Memorandum or in anything that my right hon. Friend said tonight of the alternative—that we should reduce taxation on those tobacco products which are thought to be safer than others, those with very low tar content or NSM—new smoking material.
It was unfortunate that there was no suggestion in my right hon. Friend's statement—it might have been a mistake, though I doubt it—that one way of persuading people to use a safer smoking material would be to reduce the tax on a particular type or brand. If he can assure me that this is not excluded in his negotiations and that he will actively pursue the possibility, I shall be reasonably satisfied with this debate. I am thinking in terms of a reduction in duty of 5p on a packet of 20 cigarettes if there is to be any significant contribution to health. If the NSM is to make a real contribution to health, the reduction in duty must be 10p per packet of 20.
I should like my right hon. Friend to say that it was a mistake that he spoke only of increasing taxation on tobacco productions and that the other way forward is by reducing taxation on the tobacco products which are at present infinitely safer than the ordinary tobacco.

12.29 a.m.

Sir Stephen McAdden: I had no intention of making a speech tonight, and now that I have heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) I realise that there is no need for me to speak, as he has made exactly the points that I wanted to make. Nevertheless, I must say that reading the explanatory memorandum left me in some doubt. I am not sure that the Financial Secretary has had the fullest possible consultation with the tobacco industry. For a long time the dispute has been over whether we should have an ad valorem tax, as in France, or a specific tax, as in Germany and this country.
I hope that in his negotiations the right hon. Gentleman will take into consideration the tobacco industry's importance to this country. It is a large and important element in our export trade. I hope that the Minister realises that and will do nothing to handicap its great performance in export markets. It makes that contribution to our export trade because we sell high-quality cigarettes. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not undermine the industry's position by persuading France and other countries to export cheap cigarettes, as against quality cigarettes, to this country and so destroy the home trade on which the industry relies if it is to do an export trade. I also hope that the right hon Gentleman will closely consult the tobacco industry in this country before he takes any further steps in this direction.

12.31 a.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary because I felt it necessary to express my doubts about the whole question of this debate on the technical issues. I appreciate what my right hon. Friend has done to meet me on the matters to which I wish to refer. I am interested not in exports but in the consequences to health of smoking.
However, I believe that in these debates at this time of night we are going through a charade. We are now discussing an ancient document that we know will be very much amended. We also know that at the end of the day we shall not take note of it. After the Select Committee has spent a considerable time on it and we in this House have spent time on it, the outcome is negligible. The matter goes through the Commission, whatever we say or the Select Committee says, and not matter how long we continue after midnight.
The problem is that in our changing the way in which we maintain competition between the EEC countries on a fair basis the whole discussion on this legislation has been devoted to commercial considerations. All the interests, including the multinational companies, have been consulted, except the health interests, though I believe that in this country we have looked a little at the Hunter Committee in examing some of the proposals.
My hon. Friend's undertaking that it will be possible for differential taxes to be inserted by each country, according to the weight of importance it attaches to the health hazards of different products, makes nonsense of the whole matter of trying to equalise the competitive value between the countries. Having harmonised fiscal and other arrangements, each of us can say that we are prepared to impose a tax because we wish to discourage young people from smoking a certain kind of cigarette. The exercise that we are undertaking for commercial reasons is entirely negated by the other provisions that can be made.

Mr. English: My hon. Friend will recall that matters relating to health are specifically exempted from the Treaty of Rome. On the other hand, excise taxes must be harmonised. I should think that only the European Court of Justice could reconcile the two provisions.

Mr. Pavitt: My right hon. Friend has been most helpful on the question of differential taxes. Years ago the Government tried to make cigars 10 a penny and cigarettes £1 each. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has always tried to defend his constituency interests, and I respect him for it.
The directive fails to recognise that once one changes from the weight of tobacco to the individual cigarette the assumption is that all cigarettes are equal. One is reminded of the Orwellian dictum that some are more equal than others. Some cigarettes are more equal than others.
One of the results of the directive, as I see it, will be to give king-size and "heavy" cigarettes an advantage over smaller and filter cigarettes.
We have been trying to persuade people to smoke cigarettes with less tar content and to put more filter between themselves and the stuff that they inhale into their lungs. This directive will be counter-productive to the efforts that have been made by the Health Education Council, upon which taxpayers' money has been spent.
Carcinoma of the lung is the noxious consequence of smoking. Most cardiac failures in people who are under 65 would not take place if it were not for smoking. If we were discussing the competitive arrangements for the selling of marijuana


between member countries we would feel differently. We accept a large public expenditure by the health service provided that we can have an equally large revenue from the Customs and Excise Department.
Some interesting material has come from an Australian Parliamentary Select Committee which shows that, although the Customs and Excise helps to pay public expenditure bills in this respect, the consequent health service bill is weighty. We must consider the consequent charge upon the health services.
I ask that before we come to Mark II of this legislation, before the Government make up their mind and give their opinion to the Commission, full consultation takes place with the Department of Health, the Hunter Committee and the Health Education Council. If there is to a differential on health grounds, it is nonsense not to take the opinion of experts into consideration. We should not forget that, apart from the fiscal returns, tobacco creates a large health debit on the other side.

12.40 a.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I must declare an interest in this matter. I agree with the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) that these EEC matters go through the House irrespective of what is said by us. But I hope that what is said here tonight will be taken note of by Ministers and our negotiators in Brussels.
The proposals in the document are concerned with harmonisation. The United Kingdom and Ireland use a system of taxation of cigarettes different from that which obtains in the rest of Europe. Any change will mean a great deal to us. Our consumption of cigarettes is the highest in the EEC. We smoke 140 billion cigarettes a year. Germany is hard behind us, with 130 billion, while the others are down the list with 90 billion and 80 billion. Any system of taxation of cigarettes must mean a great deal for us.
Our system is based on taxation of raw tobacco. The proposed system combines a specific tax and an ad valorem tax which holds great dangers for us. If the ad valorem tax is used to any great extent it distorts the market, since it places a premium on cheap tobacco and,

hence, low-quality cigarettes. Not only are such cigarettes cheap; they are probably more harmful than others which have been developed. Such a system of taxation ought to be regarded as deleterious to the interest of our country.
We have always placed much emphasis upon the quality of our cigarettes. It is upon high quality cigarettes that our export capability is based. We export £200 million worth of cigarettes a year. They are of the expensive variety. If cheapness becomes a criterion, not only shall we lose our exports but we shall lose revenue, to some extent, and the possibility of adequate research into producing safe cigarettes. In addition, we shall probably have to sacrifice employment.
It may be said that the other EEC countries which had different systems of taxation have not found these difficulties. However, their case is not ours. In France and Italy there is a State monopoly. with no obligation to make a profit. In the other countries there is close control of quality and price in a manner utterly hostile to the declared aims of harmonisation, which are that there should be free competition between all countries of the Common Market in the selling of cigarettes.
If this requirement is to be changed to allow free competition the position will be quite different because the system of taxation will make cheapness the criterion most to be desired. I dare say that the result will be pretty nasty cigarettes. I urge the Minister to take note of what has been said and not to agree to a specific duty as low as 5 per cent. or 6 per cent., as, I understand, has been proposed. That will cause great damage to our industry.
I take the point made by others that it is deplorable that advantage should be taken of the negotiations which are about to take place, about which we wish to be informed, to make a tax differential between cigarettes which are alleged to be better on health grounds and others. We have heard that different countries have differing views. Some countries consider nicotine to be harmful. Others do not. Some take different views about specifics. It is a matter still, to some extent, of specification. We may be satisfied with our proposals. With the proposed alterations we may find that the


19 million people in this country who smoke cigarettes are put into a special category. They ought to have their interests noted. They should not be overlooked as a result of the enthusiasm of those who concern themselves with health hazards. These proposals concern fiscal matters. It is fundamentally unsound to insert into them other considerations which may not have been fully argued. Any moves to make outcasts of cigarette smokers must be of doubtful value, and in any case are inappropriate to fiscal measures such as this.
I also believe that a differential tax combined with harmonisation is almost impossible to achieve when one country may wish to tax in one way the cigarettes that it considers most harmful and another country may not consider them to be harmful. To try to have harmonisation and health control at the same time will get us into a great muddle.
I hope that the health aspect—which is a very important one—will not be included in the negotiations which are about to take place. Certainly it will be difficult to include it, because health matters are not matters which should concern the EEC. I therefore hope that the Government will free their minds of this extraneous matter that is sought to be introduced and will consider the position of this country from the revenue and fiscal point of view in its approach to these important negotiations, about which I hope they will keep the House very closely informed.

12.46 a.m.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) will forgive me if I adopt a different approach from the one he took.
The very important documents before the House deal with the harmonisation of the tax on cigarettes. It seems to me that the Commission will have to adopt one of two different approaches. The first is to treat tobacco like any other product sold in the EEC and to seek an administratively convenient solution to the problem of different tax structures in different member countries. Such a solution would cause the minimum disruption or dislocation to trade and to the preferences of the manufacturers and others engaged in the tobacco industry.
The second approach would be to treat tobacco as a lethal and addictive drug, whose damage to the health of the Community might be minimised by a totally different strategy—one which might be administratively less convenient, which might not be wholly acceptable to the tobacco trade and which might reduce consumption of the more dangerous cigarettes.
The Commission has unashamedly adopted the first approach, and now Members have put forward reasons why this is the right approach. The documents mention not once the impact of the tobacco duty on consumption and, therefore, on health. The key to the Commission's approach is to be seen on page 4 of its document which says:
The consultants received a high level of co-operation and much data from tobacco producers throughout the Community. They also discussed their estimates of the probable effects of each of the three alternatives
—that is, the alternative tax structures—
with the major cigarette producers.
This is a dangerous, one-sided approach, since the producers will wish to maximise the consumption of tobacco whereas the Governments of the member countries are anxious to minimise consumption.
One's worst fears are confirmed by the next sentence on page 4:
The report on the study concluded, inter alia, that over the Community as a whole, harmonisation on a predominantly ad valorem structure seemed likely to produce less disturbance in the short term to existing market patterns than would either of the other two alternatives examined.
Convenience to the trade, not the impact on health, is the criterion for harmonisation. It is clear from page 5 that the Commission is anxious to promote
product and investment planning over a lengthy period",
whereas many other commentators on this subject would like to see as many obstacles as possible placed on the longterm investment of the tobacco industry.
I hope that my quotations will make quite clear the basis of the Commission's approach to the subject. I believe that it should have adopted a totally different approach inspired by different considerations—namely, a desire to promote a tax structure that minimises the damage done to the health of the community by tobacco. I believe that such an approach


would have the support of many hon. Members and would yield totally different conclusions.
I refer briefly to the speech of the Foreign Secretary, who was Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security in January last year. He said:
As I have said, we are dealing with a complex problem and a major public health hazard. Approximately 19 million people in this country—that is, nearly half the adult population—smoke cigarettes. It is estimated that cigarette smoking is responsible for at least 50,000 premature deaths annually and a great deal of consequential ill health and suffering."—[Official Report, 16th January 1976; Vol. 903, c. 802–803.]
I draw on support from the First Report from the Expenditure Committee, Session 1976–77, which is entitled "Preventive Medicine". Volume 1, paragraph 161(1), states:
we accept that any degree of cigarette-smoking is likely to harm the individual.
Sub-paragraph (5) states:
there is evidence that price increases are a factor in encouraging people to give up smoking.
The report goes on to make some strong recommendations aimed at minimising tobacco consumption. Paragraph 161 (13)(iii) recommends that:
an increase in duty to achieve a price increase sufficient to reduce cigarette consumption should be imposed annually.
The approach adopted by the Health Minister and hon. Members in a unanimous Select Committee report is totally different from the approach adopted by the EEC. One approach is aimed at maximising consumption and the other is aimed at minimising it.
The collective approach of hon. Members is supported by the Royal College of Physicians in its publication entitled "Smoking Or Health". At page 119 it states:
These are strong arguments for using increases of taxation to raise the price of cigarettes and thus reduce the amount of cigarette smoking.
At page 120 it makes a recommendation of great relevance to the debate as it deals with differential tax—namely:
A differential tax could be useful if it encouraged types of smoking which are likely to be less harmful and less addictive. Thus cigarettes with higher tar yields … might well be subject to a higher tax than cigarettes with lower tar and nicotine yields … If our

conclusion that nicotine is the basis for tobacco dependence is correct, a trend to smoking cheaper cigarettes with a lower nicotine content might reduce the degree of dependence in established smokers and make it less likely that those starting to smoke would become dependent. We note the Chancellor's intention to introduce a tax differential in relation to different types of tobacco. We hope that this precedent heralds the progressive introduction of differential taxation of tobacco products related to the latest information on health risks.
Unfortunately, it heralds no such thing. The EEC proposes to decrease the differential between the cheaper and more expensive cigarettes. In my view, the EEC starts with the wrong objective and ends up with recommendations that are diametrically opposed to the wishes of many hon. Members.
The EEC has also ignored the report of the World Health Organisation entitled "Smoking and its Effects on Health", which at pages 31 and 32 makes similar recommendations to those of the Royal College of Physicians. It states:
Legislative action should be considered for the following purposes …
(d) to adopt a system of differential taxation so as to discourage the smoking of cigarettes with a relatively high tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide yield.
The impact of what we are discussing is to have an opposite effect to that wished by everyone whom I have quoted.
In The Guardian on 22nd May 1976, it is said that:
The first change will mean that the difference in price between small and large cigarettes will be narrowed—possibly to as little as 3p or 4p a packet, compared with the 16p difference before the Budget.
That is bad news because most larger cigarettes are not in the low-tar range. That will be the impact of the Commission's recommendations, as confirmed by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 27th January when he said:
This second step is likely to involve a further reduction in the range of cigarette prices in the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 27th January 1977; Vol 924, c. 762.]
The Financial Times said on 10th May last year:
At present king size cigarettes account for only 9·5 per cent. of all cigarette sales compared with 11·3 per cent. three years ago. But, according to Player's, the changes to EEC duty methods will not only reverse the decline but could push the sector's market share up to 25 per cent.


The Economist on 20th March last year said:
Hands up all Britons smoking small cigarettes because they seem a better bargain than bigger ones. EEC membership may soon put a stop to that, causing a big switch among the 40 per cent. who smoke 'small' in Britain.
The unanimous verdict of all the commentators on this EEC proposal is that the switch will increase the relative attractiveness of the more dangerous cigarettes.
There is a further impact in that under the existing system of taxation the manufacturers have to find the duty when the leaf leaves bond right at the beginning of the process. Under the EEC "end product" system they will not have to find the duty until much later, until they have most of the money in from the retailers. This will mean a tremendous bonus in terms of cash flow. They may use that bonus to make cigarettes more cheaply at a time when many are trying to make them more expensive.

Mr. Ogden: May I risk another commercial? The hon. Gentleman has given the impression that the king-size cigarette is more dangerous than the normal size cigarette, which is getting smaller and smaller. He must know that there are many brands on the market of a normal size which a contain exactly the same tobacco content as king-size cigarettes. It is surely safer to have a longer cigarette and to leave a large filter and stub on that longer cigarette than to smoke some of the smaller cigarettes.

Sir G. Young: The hon. Gentleman obviously has professional experience. Since I do not smoke, I cannot compete with him.
I quote the Deputy Director of ASH as set out in The Guardian of 22nd May 1976:
If people transfer to king size, it will be damaging because most king-size brands are not in the low tar range.
I believe what ASH says on the subject, and I cannot develop the point further.
The key question is: what are we to do now? In one sense there is no use crying over spilt milk, but one must try to inject the health considerations into the EEC so that it considers broad issues of social policy when making administrative

decisions. That injection is needed. Secondly, we must campaign on the health education side so that the damaging consequences of EEC proposals are minimised by greater public awareness of the risks of smoking.
We must then support, but without much enthusiasm, the Treasury initiative on health grounds to impose extra tax on cigarettes. My view is that this is most unlikely to be adopted by other member countries. A prerequisite of such action is a tar table, which is not available in many member countries. I do not see them reorganising their whole system merely to accommodate a relatively late entrant to the EEC.
I believe that we should press for high ad valorem duties and low specific duties to make more dangerous cigarettes more expensive. We need to debate the Select Committee's report so that the House may express its view on the role of taxation in this respect. I have the impression that we are debating this subject somewhat in a vacuum. Some people believe that excise duty on tobacco is a legitimate health weapon, and others do not. But unless we have some policy towards cigarettes we shall never be able to influence decisions by the EEC in a unanimous way.
I know that the Financial Secretary is not without sympathy for this case because in Opposition he was associated with the health lobby. I ask him to put some pressure on his colleagues so that we may debate the subject of health in relation to smoking and resolve the matter once and for all.

12.59 a.m.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I do not propose to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) down the path on which he has led the House, because I believe it is a highly complicated diversion from the subject we are trying to debate tonight, and that is complex enough.
If my hon. Friend were to pursue his philosophy on extra taxes on cigarettes to other products—and I do not dispute that there is good evidence that cigarette smoking is harmful—we should be taxing sugar, butter and certainly all alcohol on an enormously increased scale, and also many other products which can be proved to be damaging to health.
We have to decide whether taxation is for raising revenue to pay the Government's bills or whether it is for quite different and other social purposes. So far, I believe rightly, it has been largely for raising revenue. Indeed, cigarette revenue is enormously important—over £2,250 million a year in this country, running to, say, one-fifth of all indirect taxation. Therefore, while I do not dispute my hon. Friend's concern, I believe that we would make a great mistake if we started arguing about taxation for health reasons, because it would cover such a very wide field.
The problem that we are debating tonight is a result of the very different methods of taxing tobacco in the various Community countries. As has been said, we have so far had a tax on the weight of the tobacco. The French have always had an ad valorem duty and the Italians the same, while the Germans have chosen to put a level specific financial burden on each individual cigarette. The Community is rightly, I think, attempting to come to a level method of taxing right across the board. But this presents a difficulty because of the distortion in the various markets.
I think that in this country we have always gone for a relatively high-quality product. By this I mean good tobacco, packed properly and produced on a duty basis calculated on the weight of the tobacco. This has established for us an export trade running to some £200 million a year, and we must be very cautious about what we do to disturb the home market which backs that export trade.
It is true to say that there will be a telescoping of prices and that, as a result of this change in the way in which duty is levied, there will be a narrowing of the band of prices. In the whole 18-month period during which this has been going on, a small packet of Player's No. 6 will have gone from, say, 34p up to 47p, whereas Rothmans King Size cigarettes in the same period have gone up from, say, 47p to 56p. The gap which was originally 13p is now only 9p, and perhaps on 1st January it will be as little as 6p between the king-size brand and the smaller brand.
The tobacco companies have altered their own profit margins and, therefore,

the figures I have given are to some extent prejudiced by their activities to try to maintain their share of the market. What concerns me is how hard our officials in Brussels are pressing the case for the British tobacco industry. I believe that there has been considerable co-operation, but there is little evidence that the arguments are gaining ground. For example, the French, who have raised their specific duty from zero to 5 per cent., will still acknowledge only a 5 per cent. duty, whereas we have dropped our specific duty from 100 per cent. to 75 per cent. and now to 55 per cent. In these proposals it will be only 52 per cent., according to the last Finance Act. We have therefore given away a great deal so far, and there is no evidence that the French are yet moving as substantially.
It seems to me—as I think it must to anyone who has studied this, however remotely—that a 50 per cent. compromise, 50 per cent. ad valorem and 50 per cent. specific, is probably the right answer Community-wide and one for which we should hold out very firmly.
My hon. Friend will be interested to know that the Secretary of State for Social Services has so prevailed upon the Treasury that it has proposed, to the Community, without previous consultation with the industry, that there shall be a specific derogation to the United Kingdom for a health tax. There is a suspicion that this might be allowed by Brussels if we were to make less fuss about going for a fifty-fifty compromise on duty. I am not giving that as more than a suggestion, but it must occur to those interested in the welfare of the industry that this is happening. I have a considerable number of constituents involved in the tobacco industry, which is one of the main employers of labour in Bristol.
We are the only country of the Community that is asking for a health tax. The Minister owes us an explanation of what has occurred. Because we are not debating the most up-to-date document, this matter has not come before us in the formal way in which, perhaps, it should have been presented.
When is the final stage of this harmonisation likely to take place? According to the original directive it should take place by 1980, but it seems to be well accepted that that date is unlikely to be met. Perhaps our Treasury has some


idea of when this matter will come finally to fruition.
Finally, I remind the Minister that a matter of importance to the British tobacco industry is for the Government not to leave any meeting in Brussels or any meeting of the Council of Ministers in any doubt about the interests of this country, the British tobacco industry, the export of British tobacco and above all perhaps, the British consumer. It was very easy for one of my hon. Friends to speak as he did a few minutes ago about the tobacco industry. It is the consuming public who demand the product and who continue to smoke despite the propaganda and the weight of medical opinion. Therefore, to some extent their requirements must be supplied. With those interests in mind, I hope that the Minister will answer the points I have raised.

1.7 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I think that most of what can be said about this matter has been said. I have listened to all of it. I should like to add a few comments.
I have no particular connection with the tobacco industry. Some of my friends sponsor things in my constituency, and all are sponsors in the sporting sense from time to time. I have always been attracted to that. It is one good side-product of cigarettes. I think that I sponsor far too much of the Treasury and the tobacco manufacturers in what I spend on smoking.
The document before us goes way back to 1976. It is what one might call a long wait and now, presumably, a swift despatch. It is the kind of thing we should like to see concerning the Government. Having had a long wait, we should like them to have a swift despatch at a General Election. However, if the Minister does not soon come back to us with whatever other document is around, we shall have had the European Assembly elections before we have had a chance to discuss the second document.
Whenever we discuss taxation of tobacco, the House gets involved in a debate on tobacco and health. This debate really has nothing to do with health, except that if we found ourselves smoking rotten imported tobaccos the health of the nation might deteriorate even more.

That would be the concern of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt). The debate is about the weighting of taxation as it affects the industry.
I agree with what was said by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The industry generally takes the view that the special kind of taxation that we have now is to the industry's benefit. It is to the benefit of the industry itself in so far as it makes the industry profitable and enables it to provide employment. If that were changed too far in the other direction, we could find ourselves with an industry that was run down. Then the danger would be that right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches would nationalise it. That would really concern the hon. Member for Brent, South a good deal more, because with a nationalised cigarette industry the Government would be running it and selling cigarettes to the public. The point is that at the moment we have a successful industry. We have an industry which provides a great deal of revenue for the Government. We want to know whether the Minister will fight the corner for this industry when he goes to Brussels.
These things are discussed through the Commission, with presumably our civil servants and the ministerial voices making an impact. It may be a small or a big impact. We hope that the Minister will make a big enough impact to make clear to our friends in Europe that we do not wish to change our system of duty to any great extent and that there is no reason why it should be changed.
I do not know whether there is a law in the Common Market which says that everything has to be organised on exactly the same basis between countries. I therefore hope that the Minister will go back to Europe and make it clear that we do not want any change, or very little change at any rate—short of minimal horse trading—so that the industry can remain profitable, continue to employ people and spend money on research.
If the industry is not profitable, it will not be able to spend money on research. If it cannot do that, any extra attention to health will make no difference at all. We have a responsible tobacco industry in this country and we ought to support it. I hope that the Minister does just that when he goes to Brussels.

1.11 a.m.

Mr. Peter Rees: After the great constitutional issues which have been debated earlier this might seem a rather esoteric subject. The contributions from both sides of the House have demonstrated that it is a subject of considerable importance. The Select Committee should be congratulated on having singled out this proposal for closer consideration.
It is a matter of regret that there is considerable doubt about whether this is the latest proposal. It may well be that we shall have to press the Leader of the House for further time to debate this subject and its ramifications if it turns out that there is a later document.
This document, since it concerns a major industry which employs more than 33,000 people and has about 400,000 retail outlets, must be of importance. It must be important since tobacco is a major source of revenue, contributing something like £2 billion to the Exchequer. Tonight we are concerned only with the transitional period which is due to end on 31st December 1980. With his customary dexterity, the Minister has skated around the tricky problem posed by this whole question. He has left many questions unanswered. I shall briefly attempt to probe them. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be encouraged to return to them at the end of the debate.
The principal question is whether the right balance has been struck between the ad valorem element preferred by France, Italy and the Benelux countries and the specific element in the composite duty preferred by the free enterprise system of this country, Eire, Denmark and Germany. The Minister may say that this is too crude a contrast, but it contains an element of truth. Certainly that is the way I see it from this side of the House.
The principal question I wish to put to the Minister is this: Why has the specific element in the duty of the United Kingdom, which under the proposal could be fixed somewhere between 5 per cent. and 75 per cent., dropped to 48 per cent. while the specific element of the duty in France and Italy has only risen to 5 per cent.? It does not seem too insular to point out that those countries of the Common

Market have gone further from the median line than we have.
Then there is the important question of how far there should be a health element in this tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) made a powerful contribution, which I do not think found entire support on this side of the House. I hope that there can be another occasion when we can go into the matter a little further. If, however, there is to be a differential tax taking into account the question of health, and if the criteria are to be fixed by the individual countries, the ideal of fiscal harmonisation, at least in this area, may have to be jettisoned.
The question which I wish to put to the Financial Secretary concerns the further concessions which he has had to make. What concessions does he feel he may have to make to secure this health element for the Secretary of State for Social Services? What kind of concessions has he had to make over the specific element to secure this health element in the tax or to secure this leeway for his right hon. Friend to impose some kind of differential tax which will militate against the high-tar or high-nicotine type of cigarette?
Again I come back to whether the Financial Secretary really can reassure us that he is combating with sufficient vigour the State monopolies and controlled markets of France, Italy and Benelux.
The consequence of undue reliance on ad valorem duties will lead, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, to a premium on tobaccos and undue concentration on a cheaper cigarette. I suggest that this may lead ultimately to a diminution in the revenue from tobacco duties. I do not think that the Financial Secretary has addressed himself sufficiently to this rather important aspect of the problem.
Looking beyond the transitional period, we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman when he envisages that it will end. The present date fixed is 1st January 1981. Does he envisage a little more slippage? Alas, in so many Common Market matters of late, there has been found to be a certain slippage. What about in this aspect?
I cannot ask the right hon. Gentleman to forecast the precise balance that will


be struck, but what balance do the Government aim for in their negotiations between the specific element and the ad valorem element in these tobacco duties? I am certain that the country and the tobacco industry are prepared to face and will welcome fiscal harmonisation, provided that the dice are not loaded against the British tobacco industry and that the range of choice for the consumer is not unduly restricted.

1.17 a.m.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: With the leave of the House, I should like to deal with some of the matters raised in this short debate, and I deal first with the main topics raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), which found their echo in most of the sub-sequent speeches.
The right hon. Gentleman made an analysis of the main negotiating stances that the British Government will take up with the member countries of the Community. Those concern three issues: first, what weight we should place on seeking the ad valorem duties that we wish to see; secondly, what weight we should place on the specific duties; and thirdly, what weight we should place on the health element.
The specific and ad valorem duties and the relationship between them is the major subject for debate. The health element is an additional one. The right hon. Gentleman asked me not to make any trade-off in the ratio between the specific duties, the ad valorem duties and the health element. What we are discussing here is the stance that we are taking, and these are the aims that we are seeking to achieve.
I do not underrate the importance of the health element, without going as far as the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). But certainly I go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) went. We are now in a position where the health risks are such that more than 50,000 premature deaths are occurring each year which are held to be attributable directly to smoking. The cost of this in terms of medical services, in earnings forgone and, consequently, in taxation not raised are very large. At this level they are so large that, quite apart from the correct emotional response that we all make, there is a financial response

which is also required to be observed when the figures get to this kind of level.
This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider, in the same way as he has to consider other sources of revenue. I am not talking about any trade-off; I am trying to establish what should be our aims when we are discussing these matters further with the other member states.
It is held readily now that specific duties should be a major objective of the Government. But it must be remembered that when we moved towards specific duties there was a great deal of opposition—opposition which the House would recall to advantage—that led my right hon. Friend to talk about predominantly ad valorem duty. He was thinking then not of the shape of the tobacco industry but of wider considerations.
One of the most important aspects is that the higher the specific duties, the narrower the price range. This was one of the particular problems which emerged in the move towards king-size cigarettes. One of the great difficulties was that the tobacco industry saw that the narrowing of the range of price as a specific element, although we had worked out as long a transitional period as we could reasonably provide for, would mean a narrower margin between the king-size cigarette and the small cigarette, which was then the most common cigarette in use.
Thus, not only did the tobacco industry have the problem about machinery, but a price war of a kind that even the tobacco industry has rarely witnessed started once it was seen that the specific duty element would lead to an increase in the use of king-size cigarettes. The consequence was not only the price war but the health danger arising from people smoking much larger cigarettes. Whether people would discard a larger butt than previously was a difficult question to assess, if it could be assessed at all.
These problems led my right hon. Friend to decide that, over a long period, the relationship between the two should be predominantly ad valorem, but if we were to say a ratio of fifty-fifty we would not be too far from what might be the ultimate aim. But we have to consider not only the health aspect and the industry generally but the import and export position. I am pleased that a large


amount of the debate was taken up with consideration of how we would be able to meet the competition from abroad.
I would like to have heard a little more about some of the advantages we could obtain from selling our own products abroad. Our own products abroad are likely to be easier to sell in the other member countries when we have a high specific element. As far as we are concerned, it has meant that, having for imports into this country a lower ad valorem element and a higher specific element, we have been enabled to meet the competition of the generally cheaper cigarettes from abroad.
The problem about our exports is that a high specific duty not only makes it more attractive to sell abroad but the tobacco itself is more easily taxed. I give an example. If we have a high ad valorem duty on expensive cigarettes with very fancy packaging of a type which is common in this country and a type which we sell all over Europe, the high ad valorem duty will be a duty based largely on the packaging as well as on the rather more valuable contents. The other advantage for us is that a high specific element will enable us to sell our cigarettes more readily abroad. All in all, therefore, I think that the relationship which we tried to achieve was right.
May I say something now about the health element and how long it will last. What we have sought is only a derogation to enable us to carry out at some stage in the future a rise in tobacco taxation related to noxious substances. I apologise for that term, which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) found an unhappy choice.

Mr. Ogden: "Harmonisation", not "noxious substance".

Mr. Sheldon: I am sorry. I shall try to correct the wording in future documents of this kind so far as I am able.
My hon. Friend asked why, instead of a supplementary duty, there could not be a reduction for other kinds of new smoking material. I think that that was the example which he had in mind. He will realise that one of the problems we have had—this concerns the House of Commons itself—is that, being a duty of a fixed amount, it has tended to reduce in real terms the yield of the revenue from

taxation. This is common to our taxes on alcohol and one or two other things. We saw what happened earlier this year when the Government tried to increase the hydrocarbon duty and found themselves unable to get a majority for that increase. The result has been that, over the years, the real revenue from these duties has been in decline. Therefore, when my hon. Friend talks about a reduction he must be aware that in order to maintain the real level of revenue one requires a rise simply to take that into account.

Mr. Ogden: Which is exactly what the Chancellor said to the House when he increased the duty on tobacco only six months ago. If my right hon. Friend is concerned only with the revenue, he will get exactly the same amount of revenue as he has now if he increases the duty on the high-tar, high-yield cigarettes and reduces it on the low-tar, low-yield type.

Mr. Sheldon: I note that my hon. Friend is anxious to reduce taxation on tobacco. I believe that over a period, with the effect of inflationary pressures, this is an aim which will lead to a reduction in revenue rather than an increase or even the steady maintenance of the revenue that he foresees.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: My right hon. Friend seems to be advancing a most peculiar argument. The Government appear to be saying "We shall pay a lot of attention to the health aspect so long as it does not reduce the total that we receive." Surely, if it is shown that the new smoking materials are less injurious to health than others are, there must be a strong case for reducing the taxation on them on the health grounds to which my right hon. Friend has referred.

Mr. Sheldon: This would be something quite new. The claim that new smoking material is less dangerous has not been proved to any of the competent authorities. In fact, the Hunter Committee itself made the assertion that the new smoking materials are not more dangerous than tobacco. It did not go further than that. If the matter were to go further than that, these would be new factors which successive Governments might wish to take into account in some way.
The position as we have it now is this. What we should require in order to maintain the revenue would be increases of a kind which has been obtained only with some difficulty through the House.
The hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) asked why the specific element was so low. I think I answered that when I said that the aim of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to obtain this approximate balance, with slightly more revenue coming from ad valorem duties. I think I made clear that the concession for health, about which the hon. and learned Gentleman was uneasy, will not be made by itself, but we stand by the main objectives on the ratio as I have put it; the health aspect is additional.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked when the transitional period would end. It is true that the end is assumed to be 1980, but I see nothing but problems in trying to achieve harmonisation in anything like that kind of period. Whatever the final decision, the bracket between which specific duties in different countries is fixed will be so wide that to move from there to harmonisation in one go will require a great deal of optimism about the likely convergence of policies in a way that I do not see. But that is not for us to decide here at this stage.
That is something for the future. What we have to discuss here is our negotiating stance for the next stage that will be debated in the Commission before too long.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify one point that he made just after the points of order were raised? I raise this because it is important to those who will follow Scrutiny Committee debates in the future. The right hon. Gentleman referred to negotiations and to this being a kind of negotiating document or a working paper, or he alluded to it as being like a working paper. Although the document might be substantially out of date and there might be a later document that will be presented on another occasion, this is a piece of draft legislation in the Community context. It is not negotiation on that document that is important. What is important is that the Minister has put the draft legislation to the House for

debate and the House has responded and made points on that draft legislation, not on working papers.

Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman must be a little confused. I was referring to the formal document required by the Scrutiny Committee for an examination of these matters. The whole purpose of these documents is to enable a debate to take place in the House so that the Government can learn of the concern of different parts of the House over the negotiations that are to take place. The documents have allowed an examination of the various views that are put forward. I do not think that working papers add anything to the argument about whether there should be more specific duties or more ad valorem duties, health-related or not health-related.
I think that we have had a wide-ranging debate. It has not been circumscribed, and I have found it useful in understanding the views of the House. I shall take full account of them and put them to the Commission during the arguments that lie ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/414/76 on excise duty on cigarettes.

FINANCE (INCOME TAX RELIEFS) BILL

Ordered,
That in respect of the Finance (Income Tax Reliefs) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses, and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

CIDER INDUSTRY (HEREFORDSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

1.34 a.m.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I consider myself fortunate to have secured the Adjournment debate this evening, and I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the House at this late hour to reply to it.
I am raising the subject of employment in the cider-making industry in Herefordshire since, knowing the Government's


concern over employment matters and the attempts by the Minister's Department to create and maintain employment, it is somewhat tragic to find that the actions of another Government Department are undermining such success as he might be achieving. I am referring to the effects on employment created by the imposition of the tax on cider which came into effect in September 1976, just over 12 months ago. This tax has been of particular significance to people in Herefordshire, for two reasons, the first being that Herefordshire has both the largest and some of the smallest producers of cider in the country, holding between them 62 per cent. of the market at this time. The largest of these producers is H. P. Bulmer Limited, the second largest employer in the country with slightly in excess of 2,000 permanent employees. The smaller companies are those such as Symonds and Company and Weston Cider which employ from 12 to 60 people full-time directly in the cider-making process.
In addition to those permanent employees, we have the agricultural work force involved in cider fruit growing and production and the casual labour force involved in picking and other seasonal activities. Altogether, the cider industry in Herefordshire is a very substantial creator of employment.
The second reason, which is a significant one, is that the Herefordshire cider industry is totally independent of the breweries. In other parts of the country the brewery industry has achieved significant control over the cider industry, to the extent that Showerings is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Allied Breweries and the Taunton Cider Company has major shareholdings by about four different breweries. Those two companies between them account for about 46 per cent. of the market.
The influence of the breweries on the cider production of these companies is such as to make somewhat suspect their comments on the effects of the tax, and I suggest that they are sometimes more interested in the brewery side of their business than the cider side.
The Herefordshire cider makers must compete against beer for their business, whereas the breweries which own cider-

makers are not so concerned about whether their income comes from beer or cider, provided just that it comes in. Indeed, I understand that it was because of the marketing success of the Hereford shire cider-makers in competing against beer that the breweries took their investment in the cider industry in the first place.
The industry in Herefordshire, therefore, has obvious and different constraints from that in other parts of the country, and the value of the cider tax must therefore be seen by its effects on the Herefordshire industry rather than on the country as a whole.
In his statement announced at the annual general meeting of H. P. Bulmer on 8th September, the chairman said in no uncertain terms that the industry was
clobbered by the imposition in September 1976 of a swingeing excise duty which necessitated an increase in price to the wholesale of 28 per cent. within a space of four months.
He went on to say:
In the year which ended in April 1976, sales volume increased by 18½ per cent. in the first half which included a good summer, but by even more—27½ per cent.—during the second winter half. Last year which ended April 1977, the first half growth with an exceptional summer was, by coincidence, also 27½ per cent., but in the second winter half, which you will remember had shown an even greater growth a year before, there was no growth at all; indeed there was a drop of 2 per cent. The reason for this total reversal of fortune can therefore be fairly and squarely placed on the 28 per cent. price increase arising from the new duty.
It has been easy for the Treasury to maintain that it is the poor summer this year, and not its tax, which has accounted for this reversal. However, I am certain, and those in the cider industry know full well, that this is not the case and that it is the price increase which is doing the damage. Indeed, the chairman of one of the smaller producers who was able to sell only half of his cider production last year is convinced that cider is being priced out of the market.
The effect on employment in Herefordshire has already been quite severe in the context of our normal stability of employment Bulmer's has been obliged to stand off 160 newly recruited employees, and it is fortunate to have the flexibility to do this. However, 160 employees redundant from one employer is by no


means the total picture. One small producer with 12 permanently employed people is highly dubious whether he will be able to stay in the business of cider production. I understand that other small firms have expressed similar sentiments. These firms do not have the flexibility to absorb the sort of knock they have taken. If they stop producing, we shall be talking of a further 50 jobs permanently lost, together with the additional casual opportunities.
Also, not apparent from the statement by the chairman of Bulmer's is the full impact of the reduction in planned output on the employment picture, because, as there has had to be a decrease in the sales budget over and above that necessary to correct for the distorting effect of the exceptional summer of 1976, additional recruiting will not take place. Because of the diversity of the nature of employment involved, some being temporary, some semi-permanent and some permanent, it is easier to express this in terms of man-shifts. Bulmer's, this one company, has had to cut back so much that 15,035 man-shifts will be lost in the year 1977–78, meaning a total of about a further 140 jobs which have not come into being as a result of the tax imposition.
In addition, the uncertainty created in the industry by the effect of the tax has created a serious lack of confidence for the future. This in turn has had an effect upon the investment plans of the industry in Herefordshire. Indeed, some £900,000 capital investment has not been fully utilised due to the falling-off in sales in 1976–77. One new bottling line installed at a cost of more than £100,000 on the basis of growth potential for 1977–78, an investment decision taken before the Chancellor's imposition of the tax in 1976, is now shut down and lying idle instead of employing 50 people. Deferred investment which would have been made in this financial year amounts to about £1·7 million-worth of plant, vehicles and buildings, about 90 per cent. of which would have been manufactured in the United Kingdom. Based on typical engineering manufacturing output, this means that approximately another 150 jobs have been lost in other parts of the country as a result of this deferred investment.
One specific item in addition is the non-purchase of stainless steel kegs and ancillary equipment to the value of £820,000 a year, an order which those engaged in keg manufacture and in the steel industry, especially the specialist steel industry involved, will be disappointed not to receive. Capital investment planned for 1978–79 and 1979–80 will be deferred indefinitely. For this one company this involves about £3 million-worth of plant, most of which would have been manufactured in the United Kingdom. The further implications of this capital deferment are grim for the employment picture as productivity could fall, leading to increasing unit costs, in turn leading to further increases in price, further decreasing sales and hence, a further decrease in job opportunities for Herefordshire.
The damage done to employment in the industry by the imposition of this cider duty is therefore palpable: 160 jobs lost and 140 jobs not created in Herefordshire, coupled to which we must add the equivalent of at least 150 jobs in the manufacturing industry outside Herefordshire, with a distinct possibility of further unemployment if the small companies in the industry find that it becomes impossible to operate.
I understand from those involved in the manufacture of cider in Herefordshire that prior to the imposition of this tax there was no discussion or consultation with the industry by the Treasury. There was no prior knowledge of the possibility of the tax. I know that the Minister will be concerned about the effect upon unemployment. Was his Department consulted by the Treasury before the imposition of the tax? If so, what was the nature of those consultations and what representations did his Department make?
The level of the tax is 24·2p per gallon. That comprises the initial 22p per gallon imposed in September 1976 together with an additional 10 per cent. subsequently imposed by regulator. Since the original imposition was a Budget matter, I can only assume that the prevent level was selected arbitrarily by the Treasury. I can find no trace or evidence of any discussion having taken place in advance.
The industry is not adverse to paying some tax. I understand that 11p per gallon would have been acceptable and that the consequences would have been


absorbed without detriment to employment.
The Minister will recollect the vicious effect that the 25 per cent. level of VAT had on the boat-building industry, for instance. Will he make the strongest representations to the Treasury on behalf of the cider-making industry, especially in Herefordshire, to reduce the tax and thereby ameliorate the adverse effect on employment that is being experienced in Herefordshire?
The revenue which has been paid so far by H. P. Bulmer & Co. is nearly £7 million. Herefordshire has lost 300 job opportunities. The Government's job creation programme is expensive, but it appears to the people of Herefordshire that their industry is being taxed and that redundancies are being made to pay for the creation of jobs elsewhere.
I extend an invitation to the Minister to come to Herefordshire and see for himself. I ask him to see the effect of the tax upon unemployment and to discuss these matters with representatives of both the large and small branches of the industry.

1.48 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): congratulate the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on having the good fortune to secure this Adjournment debate. The issues are of great importance to Herefordshire, which is one of our most beautiful counties. We are always ready to listen to its point of view. I should be delighted to visit Herefordshire to discuss the problems that face its cider industry.
This is not an easy situation. On the basis of my figures, there was no drop in the sales of cider and perry over the country as a whole in the first quarter following the imposition of the tax.
For obvious reasons, it is not normal practice for the Treasury to consult widely on tax measures that are introduced in a Budget. I understand that the likely effect of the duty on employment in the cider-making industry was considered by the Treasury before the April 1976 Budget. It was accepted that the duty might have some effect in tempering the spectacular growth in sales which the industry had previously enjoyed. However,

it was not expected to lead to any significant reduction in employment in the industry. Sales increased slightly in the fourth quarter of 1976 compared with the same period in the previous year, and they increased by nearly 5 per cent. in the first quarter of 1977.
We are here to talk not about volume of output but about employment. The two are not necessarily the same. Between 1974 and 1975, for example, there was a massive increase in sales in volume but a great fall in employment, from 1,612 to 1,402, in Herefordshire's wine and cider industry, which is predominantly cider. Perhaps it is significant for the fall in employment this year that in 1974, a peak year for employment, the apple crop was good while in 1975 the crop was poor.
There has been an increase in unemployment. In February, the worst month for which figures are available, there were 75 unemployed who had previously worked in the industry compared with 51 the previous year. In August, which is normally a good month for the industry, there were 56 people unemployed. We have to add to these a number of casual workers. We have no firm figures for the latest months, but all the indications are that the level of employment in the cider industry in Herefordshire began to fall in August, as it appears to have done in the soft drinks industry.
Some people argue, with the hon. Member, that the reason for this was the tax imposed over a year ago on cider. This does not explain the drop in demand for "pop", on which the only tax is VAT at the standard rate, or the drop in beer consumption. The Brewers Society has, according to the Morning Advertiser, blamed the fall in the production of beer over the past year on the poor summer, coupled with cut-backs in spending by consumers. The Brewers Society said:
The weather this summer and autumn has been no match for the two previous years. The down-turn is a direct result of the lack of sunshine, although a growing factor is the economic recession which is beginning to be felt in pubs.
Whatever the reason, we have to be concerned about the loss of jobs. I was concerned to read, in a statement by the chairman of Bulmer's—a man held in high regard in the industry—that the firm has had to stand off 160 newly-recruited employees. The hon. Member referred to this. Although I understand


that the industry relies on seasonal workers for certain parts of its work, and this naturally entails fluctuations in employment during the year, I hope that this move does not result in any permanent decline in employment in the industry. I certainly hope that that is not so in Herefordshire.
I was also concerned to hear of the deferment of investment. The Government have been prepared to pay the temporary employment subsidy in the cider sector, and 69 jobs have been saved. From the point of view of workers who have regular jobs in the industry, the Employment Protection Act has been of great help, as has the Government's continued support for the Redundancy Payments Act. For those working in the orchards, the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 fulfilled our manifesto pledge to abolish the tied cottage.
I take this opportunity to say how disappointed I am that the cider industry as a whole has done little for our unemployed young people, of whom there were 307 in Herefordshire in October. Only two applications have been made for the youth employment subsidy from major cider firms, and only one place has been provided under the work experience scheme. The industry could do much more for our young people in Herefordshire, relying not wholly on its own money but using Government money. The work experience scheme is an excellent scheme by which employers can mount, on their own premises, schemes designed to give young people under 19 a realistic introduction to work in an industry. The young people involved receive an £18 weekly allowance from the Manpower Services Commission. The cost to an employer of helping a youngster under this scheme is negligible. We hope that the cider manufacturers will give some unemployed youngsters a chance under the work experience scheme.
But what we want most of all are regular jobs for all our people, and especially the young. With increased prosperity they will come to the cider industry. The industry is already doing very well in building up exports. When we grow in prosperity—and perhaps the sun shines and the apples flourish—then will employment grow in the cider industry.
I have been reading the report of Bulmer's and was delighted to read the chairman's

statement—despite his strictures—that the company could cope despite difficulties. I am sure that the firm can, and I look forward, with it, to greater security of employment in the cider industry in Hereford. I have been encouraged in this by reading the statements in the Off-Licnce News of last Thursday. It says that
Coates Gaymers is predicting a happy Christmas for sales of its cider brands—and is spending upwards of £100,000 on its heaviestever programme of pre-Yuletide promotions"—

Mr. Shepherd: Will the Minister say whether it was made clear in the article whether Coates Gaymers was selling at sub-economic prices? That is one of the problems that are of concern to the cider industry in Herefordshire.

Mr. Golding: That is a question that we will leave for answer when we visit Herefordshire. I am not in a position to say whether Coates Gaymers will be making a profit on its cider. I should assume so.
The firm says that
The decision to spend the money was taken after the company took a critical look at the state of the total cider market recently.
It says that, although the total cider market is likely to have contracted by about 7 per cent. during the financial year,
this should not be seen as a downward trend in the market in real terms.
One must recall that during our previous financial year, the cider market, assisted by a long hot summer, grew by a massive 24 per cent. The industry's net gain, and that of the trade, over the past two years has therefore been a 15 per cent. growth rate or some 6 million gallons of cider by volume.
Although there is evidence to suggest that the increase in Duty to 24·2p per gallon prior to Christmas 1976 played a significant rôle in market contraction, prospects for the cider industry remain very good.
Even without the bonus of a good summer, Coates Gaymers estimates that the market will increase by 3 per cent. during the next 12 months and we plan to achieve a growth rate at least in line with this total market forecast. It is with this objective in mind that the company is implementing its heaviestever programme of pre-Christmas promotions.
I am sure that the optimism of the West Country should be shared by Herefordshire, although I shall certainly consider the point that the hon. Gentleman has made that perhaps in some way the


breweries are propping up the West Country cider firms to make inroads into market for other products.
We believe that in Herefordshire the management and the workers are first class and that they will surely, given their past record of productivity and sales promotion, overcome the difficulties that they

now face. The Government are ever ready to listen to the problems that face management and worker throughout the United Kingdom and are always prepared to receive representations from the hon. Gentleman on behalf of his constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.